9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be entitled for baggage benefits. HELD THAT:- There are force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the duty free baggage allowance that is permitted under the Rules to a passenger cannot be clubbed with the duty free allowance permitted to another passenger even if he/she falls within the definition of the family of the first passenger - It is relevant to note in the instant case that the baggage in which the spare parts in question were carried, was declared in the name of the petitioner. The baggage in question had therefore to be seen as the baggage of the petitioner as an individual passenger. While it would have been open to the petitioner to claim a duty free clearance in respect of the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OY And THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FOR THE PETITIONER : SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN JUDGMENT A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Assistant Commissioner of Air Customs, Cochin and the Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.6.2016 of the learned single Judge in the W.P.(C)No.29511 of 2005. The petitioner in the writ petition, along with his wife and two minor children, had travelled from Sharjah, UAE to India on 28.6.2004. The petitioner carried in his registered baggage four articles of sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Resultantly, therefore, the petitioner had to pay duty on the remaining value of ₹ 25,000/- at the rate of 40% ad valorem and further was subjected to a penalty and fine in terms of the Customs Act. Against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The said appeal was, however, rejected by the appellate authority by Ext.P6 order. A further revision preferred by the petitioner also did not meet with any degree of success save for a partial reduction of the fine and penalty in Ext.P7 order. In the writ petition the petitioner sought to impugn Exts.P5, P6 and P7 orders of the authorities inter alia on the contention that, inasmuch as the co-passengers accom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether the spare parts that were carried constituted a bona fide baggage or not, the learned Judge found that inasmuch as the spare parts did not come within the excluded category of goods under Annexure I of the Baggage Rules, the same had to be treated as bona fide baggage for the purposes of the Rules. The impugned orders of the Customs authorities were therefore quashed and the petitioner held entitled to a refund of the duty, fine and penalty paid by him. 2. In the Appeal before us it is the contention of Smt.Preetha S. Nair, the learned counsel for the appellants that the definition of family under Rule 2(iv) of the Baggage Rules is only for the purpose of indicating the members who can qualify as family for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he/she falls within the definition of the family of the first passenger. It is relevant to note in the instant case that the baggage in which the spare parts in question were carried, was declared in the name of the petitioner. The baggage in question had therefore to be seen as the baggage of the petitioner as an individual passenger. While it would have been open to the petitioner to claim a duty free clearance in respect of the various articles/spare parts had they been invoiced to, and included in the baggage of, the other passengers who were individual members of his family and in whose names the baggages were registered, perhaps he could have claimed the benefit of duty free allowance as applicable to each of those passengers. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
