9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible for grant of baggage allowance as the impugned goods cannot be treated as bonafide baggage. Hence, Government opines that granting the benefit of free allowance by Appellate Authority is not proper and correct. As regards the valuation issue the applicant has relied upon value of electronic goods of different make and model: Government notes that in absence of any documentary evidence produced by the applicant relevant for the television set such as purchase invoice etc. Government sets-aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and restores the Order-in-Original in toto. - Decided in favor of revenue. - F.No.380/68/B113-RA , F.No.373/105/B/13-RA - ORDER NO. 29-30/2016-CUS - Dated:- 8-3-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: These Revision Applications are filed by Shri M. Kudubdeen (here in after referred as applicant ) and by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy (here in after referred as department ) against the Order-in-Appeal No. C.CUS/58/2013 dated 16.05.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Trichy with respect to Order-in-Original No.89/2013 dated 19.03.2012 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Trichy as detailed bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instant case also passenger had brought commercial quantity of goods with intention to be sold in India for monetary consideration. Being a carrier of the goods it attracts the provisions of Section 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 and made the goods liable for confiscation under Section Ill(i), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and render the passenger liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Act, ibid. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law adjudicated the case vide his Order-in-Original no. 89/2013 dated 19.03.2012 and confiscated the impugned goods under the relevant provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 with the option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 51,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Customs duty as applicable and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 15,000/- under Section 112 of the Act, ibid and denied the free allowance. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, passenger filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order dated 16.052013 set aside the lower adjudicating authority order dated 19.03.2013 and granted the full free allowance as per Rule 3 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in respect of imposing fine and penalty and revaluation of the impugned goods should be done after granting abatement of 40% on the market price to arrive at assessable value for purpose of levying duty. Applicant prays that the Hon'ble Revisionary Authority may order favorably the relief claimed and thus render justice. 4.2 Grounds for Revision tendered by the Department . 4.2.1 That the passenger Shri M. Kudubdeen, has made at least two other trips prior to the present trip. The adjudicating authority, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Trichy Airport, has rightly identified him to be a frequent traveller trader and has booked an offence against him in the past for contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1962. In the present case this time applicant also brought trade goods consisting one high-end TV and other electronic goods totally valued ₹ 1,57,700/-. As per Notification No.30/1998-Customs (N.T.) dated 02.06.1998 read with Board's letter F.No.495/19/99-Cus.V1 dated 11.04.2000 and F.No.520/67/2000-Cus.V1 dated 22.02.2011, the passenger, being a trader, cannot be equated with a genuine passenger for grant of free allowance. In the circumstances, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough the relevant case records and perused the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. At the outset, Government notes that the Revision Application is filed by the applicant beyond the stipulated period of 03 months. The impugned order was received by the applicant on 23.05.2013 whereas the date of receipt of Revision Application is 01.10.2013. The application is, therefore, filed after a delay of 41 days. However he has requested the Revisionary Authority to condone the delay on the ground that he was not aware as to where the appeal would lie. As the delay is within condonable limit, Government in exercise of powers vested in Section 129 DD (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 condones the delay and now proceeds to take up the Revision Applications for decision on merit. 9. Upon perusal of the case records, Government observes that main issue which forms the basis of these Revision Applications is the valuation of the impugned goods and granting of benefit of free allowance by the Appellate Authority to the passenger. 10. The Department has contested in its grounds of revision that the applicant passenger is a habitual offender and frequent traveler. He has two previous c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im ineligible for grant of baggage allowance as the impugned goods cannot be treated as bonafide baggage. Hence, Government opines that granting the benefit of free allowance by Appellate Authority is not proper and correct. 12. As regards the valuation issue the applicant has relied upon value of electronic goods of different make and model: Government notes that in absence of any documentary evidence produced by the applicant relevant for the television set such as purchase invoice etc. in support of his claim for the value, Department has rightly resorted to arrive at assessable value of the impugned goods on the basis of market value after granting permissible deductions as per Customs valuation Rules, 2007. 13. Government further notes that not only has the applicant attempted to smuggle the impugned goods in substantial quantity without declaring it to the Customs but it is an uncontested fact on record, he is also a habitual offender. Government, therefore, finds no merit in the plea of the applicant to set aside the redemption fine and penalty. 14, In view of the above discussion and material facts on records, Government sets-aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
