9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by Commissioner of Customs (Airport Air Cargo), Chennai (here in after referred to as Department) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 907/2013 dated 28.06.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, with respect to Order-in-Original No.550/Batch 1 B' dated 06.05.2013 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the passenger Shri Mohammed Rafick Bin Samsudeen (hereinafter referred to as Respondent), a Singapore national had arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2013. After collecting his baggage, the passenger walked through Green channel and on interception on way to exit he was intercepted by the Customs officer and interrogated. He confessed to have carried one Sony Camera DCR-VX2200E valued at ₹ 1,00,000 /- for someone and therefore the adjudicating authority having secured the waiver of Show Cause Notice passed the spot adjudication order dated 06.05.2013 and confiscated the goods absolutely under Section Ill(d),(l),(m) (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 (3) of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT allowing redemption of gold and upheld the order passed by Commissioner of Customs ordering absolute confiscation of gold. In this case the gold did not belong to the passenger Mr Mohamed Aijaj who acted as carrier of gold. The said order of Bombay High Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2010 (253) ELT E83(SC.). It is apprehended that the impugned Order-in-Appeal if implemented would jeopardize revenue interests irreparably since the passenger is a foreign national and the likelihood of securing the revenue interests as per original order in the event of its restoration during this revision process would be grim. 4.5 In view of the above, it is prayed that the order in appeal be set aside absolute confiscation and penalty be upheld and such an order be passed as deemed fit. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent on 12.112013, in response to which the following submissions dated 09.03.2013(received on 18.03.2013) 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision application filed by the applicant may be dismissed and the order of the appellate authority be upheld. 6. Personal Hearing scheduled in this case on 07.09.2015, 05.10.2015 and 05.11.2015. Shri S. Aravindh (Advocate), M/S Aum Associates attended hearing on behalf of the respondent and reiterated his written submissions. None from the Department attended the hearing. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral written submissions and perused Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. Upon perusal of records, Government observes that the applicant, a Malaysian national has arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2013 by flight No. Al 343. He walked through Green channel and was intercepted on his way to exit by Customs Officer and on being interrogation he confessed to have carried one Sony camera (model DCR-VX2200E) valued at ₹ 1,00,000/- for someone else. As the respondent attempted to smuggle one Sony high end camera without declaring it to Customs, in contravention of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 and during the course of hearing before the adjudicating authority the passenger admitted the fact that he had brought the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules. In the counter to Revision Application once again claimed that the pax did not contravened the Section 77 of the Act, ibid as he reported to the Red channel to enquire about the duty liability of the impugned goods and it is to be given as gift to his friend in India. Any contract claim regarding ownership of the impugned goods made before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in counter reply to the Revision Application is clearly an after thought. 13. Government opines that any oral submission made before the adjudicating authority will be a material piece of evidence, in view of the specific admission made by the respondent before adjudicating authority. Government is inclined to hold that the respondent is a carrier of the impugned goods. 14. Government observes that the Section 79 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that the proper officer may, subject to any rules made under sub-section (2) pass free of duty any article in the baggage of a passenger in respect 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 articl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat carrier is not entitled to benefit of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. Government, therefore, holds that in the present case the goods imported by the passenger as a carrier are liable for absolute confiscation as rightly pleaded by the Department. 16. 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. From perusal of records, Government finds that the Assistant Commissioner has been duly authorized by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport Air cargo) to file a Revision Application on his behalf. Therefore, there is no merit in the objection of respondent that the Revision Application is not maintainable on this ground. 18. In view of the above circumstances, Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is therefore set-aside and the impugned Order-in-Original is restored in toto. 19. Revision App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
