9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll and digital diaries (10 nos.) and the value of the goods as Rs. 35,000/- and based on the said declaration the Customs officer assessed the goods. However, as a result of the detailed examination, the officers found electronic goods namely mobile phones, mobile phones in CKD condition, computer ROMS, notebooks ROMS, etc. in commercial quantity totally valued at Rs. 18,38,300/- (CIF). After due investigation, the SCN dt. 23-5-2000 was issued to the applicant against which the settlement application was filed. A copy of the application was sent to the respondent Commissioner who sent a report dt. 29-5-2001. At the time of hearing held on 12-6-2001, for considering the admission of the application, Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate appeared for the applicant while none represented the Revenue. However, taking into account the report of the respondent Commissioner and the submissions of the Advocate, the application was allowed to be proceeded with in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 (ACT for short). The applicant had admitted additional duty liability of Rs. 10,04,465/-. Since it was submitted that the Revenue has already disposed of the goods (as found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue and has come forward to pay the duty due thereon and in view of full and true disclosure as also the co-operation, applicant is entitled for grant of the immunities prayed for. The Advocate also pointed out that the applicant was detained under COFEPOSA Act for one full year and because of detention, he lost his business. He submitted that the applicant has to start the business afresh and support his widowed mother, wife and two children and accordingly, prayed for total immunity from penalty or imposition of a nominal penalty. He also pointed out that the Revenue has disposed of the goods for a value lesser than the CIF value and accordingly, there is no question of imposition of any fine on the applicant. 5. One question for consideration is in the face of his statements dt. 3-12-1999 and 22-12-1999 averring that the value of his own goods was around Rs. 1.5 lakhs and the rest belong to one Shri Jinnah of Chennai, whether the applicant is entitled to the goods, or the sale proceeds as the goods have been sold pending adjudication. Similarly, whether the Revenue was bound to allow redemption of the goods if it was held that the applicant was the owner of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia, stated that her husband was working in Malaysia for the past 6 years and that he visits India once or twice a year and further, his last visit was in October, 1999 when he is said to have stayed at Chennai for 10 days. She has further stated that her husband did not send anything through anybody in his absence. She expressed total ignorance about Shri Mahesh Raj or his bringing goods at the instance of her husband. The Bangalore Customs officers had searched the residence and business premises of the applicant and did not find any incriminating documents or materials. The stand of the Revenue is that but for the details given by the applicant, the Revenue would not have known about Shri Jinnah or the transaction between the applicant and Shri Koya. As there is corroboration from Shri Koya and also that there is one Shri Jinnah at Chennai, would go to prove the voluntary nature of the statements including the portion wherein he had stated that the goods did not belong to him. No doubt, it is found that the applicant had initially given inculpatory statements, but as earlier said, in the petition dt. 14-12-1999, his Advocate has made a claim for the goods and that too in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was ordered. 11. Even though, the applicant made a claim on the goods they have been sold pending adjudication without giving a notice to the applicant. Hence, he is entitled for the sales proceeds as laid down in Section 150 of the Act. 12. As regards liability to duty on the imported goods, Section 12 of the Act is very clear. Liability is on the imported goods irrespective of the ownership. Again, as per Clause (c) of Section 150 of the Act, duty is to be adjusted from the sales proceeds. Accordingly, there is no doubt on the liability to payment of duty on the goods brought by the applicant as baggage. 13. The applicant has accepted the value fixed by the Revenue. However, in calculating the duty amount he has taken into account 50% as the basic Customs duty as per Notification No. 136/90-Customs dt. 20-3-1990 as amended by Notification No. 28/98-Customs, dt. 2-6-1998 and 10% surcharge on the same. The applicant has also taken Rs. 12,000/- towards duty free allowance. However, the applicant has not taken into account the special additional duty of Customs at the rate of 4%. Since the goods were in commercial quantity and not being a bona fide baggage, he cannot also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
