9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Travel Agent and dealt in the purchase and sales of Goods of Foreign origin. 2. The market value of seized goods taken over from Police was Rs. 1, 93,240/- CIF Value is not shown in the documents, out of which, goods valued at Rs. 14,300/- (approx.) market value, only attract Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were explained by the appellant to be collection of duty paid goods procured by him. The lower authorities on adjudication ordered the confiscation of goods worth Rs. 28,500/-, appropriated the bank guarantee of Rs. 1,65,000/- executed for provisionally released goods not available for confiscation and confiscation of Rs. 365 were foreign currency under seizure. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Customs but are consumer goods, the import of which is restricted under para 156 of EXIM policy which have been imported illegally in the guise of passengers unaccompanied baggage by misutilising the passports of the said persons on giving them remuneration between Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2,500/- as is evident from the statement of the said persons as cited above and is reflected in appellant's own confessional statement. Therefore the argument of the appellant that these goods are freely available in country will not hold water. What is allowed to be imported is bona fide baggage, that is, bona fide personal and household effects, what is not allowed to be imported is consumer goods belonging to third parties in the guise of unaccompanied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer at Air Cargo Bangalore, was in order or otherwise. The jurisdiction rested with the officers of Air Cargo Bangalore. We rely on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Ram Narain Bishwanath 1997 (96) E.L.T. 224 (S.C.) had held. "4. It seems to us, having regard to the facts set out above, clears that it was for the Customs authorities at Paradip to initiate proceedings against the respondents on the ground that the goods had been imported on fictitious licences and not for the Customs authorities in West Bengal to do so". In that case the goods were cleared on Bills of Entry at Paradip, Orissa and seized in West Bengal by the Customs Authorities there. In the case before us, the goods are found to be cleared on do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sitation to allow the appeal and order the return of the goods covered by Section 123 and other goods to the appellant here in this case. Since these goods were required to be proved as smuggled goods, by the Department, and that burden has not been discharged by them in the facts of this case. We would therefore, set aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant, as we do not find any justification for the confiscation or the penalty. The order of confiscation of the Foreign Currency seized and confiscated against which no appeal was filed by the appellant, is not disturbed. 4. In view of our findings, the appeal is allowed, all goods except Foreign Currency stand released and the penalty is also set aside with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
