9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- on the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Police Officer of Senapati Police Station, on 9th November, 1987, recovered some foreign goods from an ambassador car No. NLS-94, from the possession of driver Shri G.K. Pradhan. Subsequently, on 10-11-1987 the goods were handed over to the Customs officers, Imphal for taking actions under the Customs Act. Shri Pradhan gave a written statement to the Customs officers on 10-11-1987 stating that he was going towards Kohima and the Sony T.V. and Cannon Video Camera belonged to Shri I. Longkumer (the present appellant) and the remaining Indian goods belonged to him. He also stated that the said goods were brought to Imphal from Kohima for repairing, for which he could not produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... International Passenger Baggage declaration No. 2275/83 dated 10-11-1983 of Calcutta Airport declaring the Sony TV valued at Rs. 5000/- and one receipt of Book No. B232 receipt No. 77 dated 10-11-1983 for Rs. 39/- only. A correspondence was made to the Assistant Collector, Cargo Complex, Calcutta from the office for the verification regarding payment of Customs Duty on the seized Sony TV. But the Assistant Collector (U/B) Calcutta Airport informed that the duty of Customs leviable on such TV set does not appear to have been realised at their end. 4. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the appellant as well as the driver calling upon him/them to show cause within 14 days from the date of receipt of notice as to why the seized goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said receipt should have been conducted with the knowledge of the appellant and the appellant should have been extended a chance to be present jointly while the records were inspected. He, therefore, contended that the appellant has been denied a joint inspection which would have been of great help. He contended that probably due to the workload the officers conducting the verification/inspection of records lost sight of the vital documentary evidence that the duty payment must have been paid into the bank in the case of colour TV. He also contended that the seized goods being under the personal use of the appellant was protected by Section 11G of the Customs Act. He, therefore, contended that the confiscation is not in accordance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the appellant is that he has produced the baggage declaration in this regard. The baggage declaration is to the effect that the Sony Colour TV valuing at Rs. 5000/- was declared by the appellant to the Calcutta Airport. The same is filed along with the appeal. But the appellant was not able to produce the receipts for having paid the duty with respect to the above said TV. When the appellant cleared the TV from the airport, he was required to pay the duty. The case of the appellant is that the tax paid receipt is misplaced. In the appeal petition the appellant had stated that the unaccompanied baggage duty was paid in the State Bank of India, Cargo Complex Branch. It was for the appellant to produce the evidence to show that the ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o camera in question is justifiable. It is now seen that the appellant had produced a baggage receipt issued by the Customs Department, Calcutta Airport bearing No. A-698645, dated 9-8-1985, which was found to be a false one on verification from the Airport authority. It is not expedient to allow the appellant also to be present at the time of verification by the officers of the Airport. There is a presumption that all the official acts are done in accordance with the law in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act; It was for the appellant to prove otherwise. It is not feasible that the appellant should be permitted to verify the same along with the officers. It is not a question of joint inspection of any goods seized, but is a question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the competent authority. We order accordingly. The appellant should exercise his option for redeeming the impugned video camera on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. As far as the question of imposition of penalty on the appellant is concerned, Section 112(b) is relevant. Under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, any person who acquires possession or is concerned in purchasing any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation are liable to be penalised. In this case, the appellant cannot be said to be a person who was in the knowledge that the TV was liable for confiscation as he had given a baggage declaration and had cleared th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
