9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt showing, inter alia, importation of video camera by a passenger at Cochin International Airport. He also produced xerox copy of another baggage receipt for licit purchase of the VCR in the course of investigation. Both the baggage receipts carried endorsements that the video camera and VCR have been sold to the appellant by the passengers who imported the goods. As regards battery chargers, battery packs and the cassettes the appellant s case was that these were purchase from the market at Calcutta. After issuing a show cause notice, on adjudication, the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bhubaneswar absolutely confiscated the goods recovered from the appellants. On appeal, however, before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), absolutely confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edes that these are duly notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act as also under Chapter IVA. He has nothing to say so far as video cassettes are concerned. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 3. Opposing the contention of the ld. SDR, Shri K.K. Biswas submits that baggage receipts produced are only xerox copies. Any number of xerox copies can be made to cover smuggled goods if xerox copies are to be admitted as an evidence for lawful importation of the goods. On a query from the Bench, that apart from production of the xerox copies, there were endorsements also that the goods have been sold by the passengers concerned to the appellant herein, ld. SDR submits that on xerox copies of bagga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of VCR and video camera tally with the goods in question. 4. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I observe that so far as video camera is concerned, xerox copy of baggage receipt was produced before the seizing officer at the time of seizure itself by the appellant. The said baggage receipt has been got duly verified from the Cochin Customs Authority and has been found to be genuine as per the observations of the adjudication officer recorded in the Order-in-Original. I also observe that the marks and numbers in respect of video camera mentioned in the baggage receipt tally with the goods in question. The baggage receipts also indicates the name of the passenger who imported the goods. Once the baggage recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltant that these are notified both under Section 123 and under Chapter IVA. These were also seized from the office premises of the appellant. The burden is, therefore, on the appellant to prove that these are smuggled. No evidence of local purchase or of lawful importation has also been produced by the appellant in respect of video cassettes. Consequently, I uphold that these cassettes have been rightly confiscated. Since CIF value of video cassettes is Rs. 6,000/- as given in the appellate Collector s Order, I uphold the confiscation of the video cassettes, reducing the fine from 100% to 50% i.e. video cassettes can be redeemed by the appellant on payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/-. 5. Needless to say, the duty will be paid by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
