9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of by this common order. 2. The impugned order has ordered confiscation of watch movements, watches, button cells for watches, digital watches, digital watch etc. of foreign origin, totally valued at Rs. 31,03,090/- under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 each under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the two appellants. It appears from the records that officers of Marine and Preventive wing of the Commissionerate of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai seized these watch parts of foreign origin and, the goods being covered under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the person from whom the goods were seized was required to discharge the burden of proof that the same had been legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat watch movements are freely importable as 'open general licence' item and that the requirement of discharging of onus was an antiquated legacy of an era of restrictions on import of sensitive goods; according to him the requirement to prove the legal import is anachronistic and, therefore, penalty needs to be set aside. It is also canvassed on behalf of Shri Jatinder Singh that the allegation of goods not being passed through them would render them beyond the scope of any action under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Sailendra Nath Seth v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) [1992 (60) ELT 347 (Tribunal)], Gehri Lal Dagalia v. Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proof regarding legality of imports of the said goods not having been discharged leading to confiscability, the person from whom these were seized cannot claim any mitigating circumstances in the absence of a bill of entry relating the seized goods to duty payment. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 112 on Shri Rajendra Jain cannot be faulted. The other appellant, Shri Jatinder Singh, who is the owner of M/s GS Watch Company has allegedly not handled the goods at all. This is the finding of the lower authority and is clearly enunciated in the show cause notice. In the absence of having any connection with the confiscated goods, the question of imposing penalty under section112 may not arise. Section 112 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under 77 (in either case hereafter in this referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
