2017 (7) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat they are as used house hold goods - In the absence of any justification as to why such commercial quantity of brand new goods has been imported alongwith used house hold goods in the container, the adjudicating authority as well as first appellant authority were correct in coming to the conclusion that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation and consequent penalty - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) None for the Appellant Shri M. Chandra Bose, Addl. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per : Mr. M. V. Ravindran] 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 70/2012 (H-II) Customs, dated 26.09.2012. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. 3. This .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,25,000/- and also imposed penalty of ₹ 75,000/- alongwith applicable customs duty. It is stated by the Ld. DR that the appellant had cleared the goods on payment of duty and also redemption fine and penalty. 6. I find from the records that the appellant is not able to justify the presence of brand new Air Conditioners, Refrigerators, Lighting fixtures and Modular kitchen and in such huge quantity which is unacceptable that they are as used house hold goods. I find that the first appellate authority has correctly came to a conclusion which is in para 7.1 and 7.2 of the impugned order, which is reproduced: " .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant is an after thought and proved to be false, to claim the goods covered under the invoices as part of his baggage. I find that the appellant had not produced any proof on record beyond doubt that the said goods are meant for his personal use and it is bonafide baggage which are otherwise in commercial quantity. Therefore, appellant is liable for penal action and the lower authority is justified in confiscating the goods and imposing fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962." 7. In the absence of any justification as to why such commercial quantity of brand new goods has been imported alongwith used house hold goods in the container, the adjudicating authority as well as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X