9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods consisted of mostly items in trade quantity for example 333 spectacle frames, 265 ball point pens, 641 watch straps. The passenger, on examination by the officers, admitted the purchase and import of the goods, saying that his intention was to sale them in order to make a profit. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has found that the goods could not be baggage, by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 5.6 of the Export Import Policy 1997-2002; that most of the goods were prohibited for import without a licence. He has therefore ordered their confiscation under clause (d) of the Act, and imposed a penalty on the appellant. 2. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the Import Policy permits, in para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be imported by any person. It goes on to say that where such import requires a licence, the actual user may import them, unless this condition is dispensed with. Paragraph 5.6 says Samples of such items that are otherwise freely importable under this Policy may also be imported as part of a passenger baggage without a licence. Now, a passenger would belong to the category of any person figuring in paragraph 5.2. Paragraph 5.2 thus itself permits a passenger to import goods which are freely importable. Why paragraph 5.6 should restrict import by passengers of such goods is unclear. It also makes no sense. If the appellant before us could, as a commercial venture, import, say that, 10 million watch cases without a licence, it makes no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirm the confiscation of other goods valued at Rs 2.76 lakhs under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. 7. We however permit their redemption on payment of fine. Having regard to the fact that the appellant did attempt to import these goods without a licence, and their value and quantity, and since the possibility that it cannot be excluded in the facts of this case, we direct the Commissioner to fix the redemption fine, not, as he may normally do, on the basis of margin of profit but by applying the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Act i.e. on the sale price less duty payable thereon. On the same consideration, we are unable to interfere with the penalty imposed and confirm it. 8. Appeal allowed in part. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
