9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither to whom the camera was meant to be handed over have claimed the impugned goods. Therefore, the camera cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. - goods imported by the passenger as a carrier are liable for absolute confiscation. Government further finds that in view of the facts and circumstance of the case penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act ibid has been rightly imposed on the respondent. The quantum of penalty as imposed by the original authority is reasonable and commensurate with the nature of the offence to the extent that neither the goods were declared and were in excess of the admissible baggage allowance but were also meant for someone else. - Decided in favor of revenue. - F. No. 380/71/B/13-RA-CUS - ORDER NO. 28/2016-CUS - Dated:- 8-3-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by Commissioner of Customs (Airport Air Cargo), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. C. Cus No. 906/2013dated 28.06.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals) Chennai, with respect to Order-in-Original No. 551/Batch B dated 06.05.2013 passed by Assistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be grim. 4.4. The applicant placed reliance on following case laws: G.V. Ramesh and others vs CC Air Chennai 0212 (T-Mad) UOI vs Mohamed Aijaj Ahmed WP No. 49 (Born) 5. A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent on 13.11.2013, in response to which the following submissions dated 09.12.2013(received on 18.02.2013) has been made: 5.1. That the revision application filed is not maintainable as the person who has filed the said application has not been authorized by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport Air cargo) to file the said application in terms of Section 129 DD (IA) of the Customs Act, 1962. That the authority who has filed the present application has used the powers solely vested with the Commissioner of Customs, which ought not to be permitted to be sustained by the Revisionary Authority without prejudice. 5.2. That there is nothing wrong in the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in permitting redemption of the one unit Sony Camera which by no stretch of imagination could be considered as 'Prohibited Goods'. 5.3. That at the time of personal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that other than the camera the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The passenger was intercepted at the green channel and when questioned he confessed to have carried one Sony Camera DEC-VX2200E valued at ₹ 1,00,000 /- for someone. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport) vide Order-in-Original No. 551/Batch B dated 06.05.2013 ordered for absolute confiscation of goods under Section Ill(d), (l), (m) (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and imposed penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, who vide Order-in-Appeal no. C.Cus No. 906/2013 dated 28.06.2013 allowed redemption of the impugned goods on payment of redemption file of ₹ 10,000/- and reduced the penalty to ₹ 5,000/-. Now Department has filed this revision application under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the grounds mentioned at para 4. 9. Government observes that the main contention of the Department is the fact that respondent is a carrier and brought the goods for someone else and this fact has been ignored by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of which the said officer is satisfied that it is for the use of the passenger or his family or is a bonafide gift or souvenir; provided that the value of each such article and the total value of all such articles does not exceed such limits as may be specified in the rules. In this case, the respondent walked through the green channel without declaring the goods he possessed much in excess of the prescribed baggage allowance which clearly shows that he wished to evade duty involved on the impugned goods brought by him for someone else. The goods are clearly not bonafide baggage and rightly held as liable for confiscation. 15. In the present case as the passenger is not the owner of the goods and neither to whom the camera was meant to be handed over have claimed the impugned goods. Therefore, the camera cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. Government places reliance on the following decisions of the higher Courts the ratio of which is squarely applicable to the instant case. 15.1 The Apex Court in the case of 0m Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs Delhi reported in 2003(155) ELT 423 (SC) has categorically held that if there is any pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
