9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-36/83L dated 25.5.83 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. 2. A brand new motor cycle which the appellant claimed as his un-accompanied baggage was confiscated by the Asstt. Collector by his order dated 18.1.83 firstly on the ground that there was no proof that the motor cycle in question was the un-accompanied baggage of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought in similar cases on payment of fine. He, therefore, prayed that the order may be set aside and the motor cycle may be released on nominal fine. Shri Harish placed reliance on Rule 9 of the Baggage Rules which permitted import of motor cycle among other items. 4. Shri Prabhu appearing for the Collector opposed this appeal and contended that the motor cycle in question was not the baggage it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) nor during the hearing of this appeal Shri Harish was able to produce evidence as to the date of purchase of this motor cycle as well as the date of booking of the motor cycle to India. Shri Harish could not even state the date on which the appellant arrived in India. 6. In order to claim the benefit of Rule 7 which governs the unaccompanied baggage it is necessary for the appellant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of confiscation passed by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Appellate Collector cannot be said to be bad in law. 7. The plea of Shri Harish that the motor cycle should be released on payment of fine cannot be accepted. In flagrant violation of the Import (Control) Order, the motor cycle had been imported. From the statement of the appellant it is clear that the import was also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
