9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ium and other one at his residential premises. However, an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/- has been given by the adjudicating authority. (2) Camera (Olympic) - recovered from the residential premises alongwith the flash has been confiscated absolutely. Apart from the confiscation of the aforesaid goods a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed, inter alia, on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. In coming to a finding of confiscation of the VCRs, the learned adjudicating authority has held that the appellant herein at the time of seizure no doubt stated that the VCR recovered from his videotorium was mortgaged to him by one Mohd. Hussain Ismail but he has not been able to substantiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 1975. He has, therefore, confiscated the 2 VCRs. 2. Learned advocate for the appellant, on the other hand contends that the adjudicating authority has wrongly applied the Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975. These rules are applicable in respect of the goods which are cleared as baggage and exempted from duty. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the 2 VCRs had been cleared on payment of duty and two baggage receipts have been produced by the appellant. He further states that both these VCR sets were mortgaged to him, one by Mohd. Hussain Ismail and another by Anil Ram. A letter of mortgage deed in respect of Anil Ram has been produced and is on record as admitted in the impugned order itself. He further states that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use of an article in one s own profession is no less a personal use. Provisions of para 5 of the ITC Public Notice prohibits the goods cleared under the said notice from being sold, advertised or offered for sale or displayed in a shop . Obviously, none of these things has been resorted to in respect of the VCRs. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has contravened the provisions of the said ITC Public Notice. It has already been held that Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975 do not apply. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2 VCRs have contravened any of the provisions either of the Export Control Act or any Public Notice issued thereunder or of the Customs Act. It is not the case of the department that the VCR has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
