9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 03-10-2018, boarding pass no. G3KG9L. The appellant stated that he arrived at Ahemdabad airport from Dubai and then he was going to Jaipur by Yoga Express. He also stated that the Goods in his three bags and one hand bag were brought by him from Dubai and he did not have any bills for the the same. Therefore the officers of the ATS, Ajmer and officers of Customs & CGST, Ajmer handed over the appellant with his baggage to the Customs officer of Jaipur, on the reasonable belief the appellant was carrying goods without having any invoice-bill and without payment of Customs duty. 3. Thereafter, the Customs officers decided to conduct personal and baggage search of the appellant but the appellant requested the officers to take search at a safer place, as he was having valuable luggage. Considering the request of the appellant, the Customs officer brought him along with his luggage at Customs Office, NCRB Building, C-Scheme, Jaipur. At Customs office, Jaipur, two Panch witnesses were called on the spot and were requested to reamin present during the search proceedings. The appellant was served upon a Notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 for seeking his consent for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he brought five Apple I-Phone Mobiles, two gold items (Locket) weighing 45 grams, some perfumes, Deo, Protine powder, Lotion, Shampoo, four cigarette cartons (total 960 Cigarette sticks), four Tobacco packets (total 1 kg Tobacco); that he came out of Ahemdabad airport without paying Customs duty and went to Ahemdabad Railway Station and boarded the Yoga Express for Jaipur; that the ATS officers inquired from him at Railway Station and deboarded him at Ajmer at 9.00 PM and checked his baggage; that the officers of ATS handed over him to the Customs officers of Jaipur, that on his request, the Customs officers took him to Customs office situated at Jaipur, that his personal search was conducted after serving him a notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962; that five Apple I-Phone Mobiles, two gold items(Coins) weighing 45 grams, some perfumes, Deo, Protien powder, Lotion, Shampoo, four cigarette box (total 960 Cigarette sticks), four Tobacco packets (total 1 kg Tobacco) were recovered during search of his baggage; that five I-Phone belonged to Shri Bharat Thadani, resident of Near Shree Talkies, Ajmer, and these phones were to be handed over to him for which Shri Bharat Thada ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . valued at Rs. 1,43,325/-. ii) Goods valued at Rs. 8,74,550/- (5 Apple I-phones valued at Rs. 4,80,000/-, 240 filter Cigarettes valued at Rs. 7200/-, Drum Bright Blue premium quality tobacco valued at Rs. 3600/-, Cosmetic items valued at Rs. 1,89,600/- and Food Supplements valued at Rs. 1,94,150/-). 10. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner, office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur, issued the Show Cause Notice dated 23/04/2019 requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the seized two gold coins weighing 45 gms and valued at Rs. 1,43,325/- be not confiscated as well as the other goods recovered and seized from him valued at Rs. 8,74,550/- be not confiscated under Section 111 (d) (i) (j) (l) & (m) of the Act. Further, penalty was proposed under Section 112 (a) (ii) & 114 AA of the Act, penalty was also proposed on co-accused Mr. Bharat Thadani under the same Sections. 11. The SCN was adjudicated on contest by the Additional Commissioner, in office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jodhpur, at Jaipur by order-in-original dated 04/01/2020, absolutely confiscating the gold coins, the cigarettes and the drum BB premium quality tobacco. 12. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation and be at mercy of them, whether they record the statement or not- 2017-3558-ELT-643-Tri-All, Om merchants Export P Ltd Vs Comm of Customs Lucknow. 14.5 That the valuation has been arrived at Internet prices and are not in accordance with any valuation rules or law laid down by superior courts. 2021-375-ELT-577-Tri Kol- Roz Mohammed Vs Comm Customs Kolkata. 14.6 That the electronic goods viz mobile have also undergone depreciation and got outdated, leading to reduction in valuation only due to high handedness of the prejudice respondent. RF imposed is now more than the value of the goods. 14.7 That due to apathy, the cosmetic and food supplement have expired and are not be fit for human consumption. The application for provisional release on undertaking that the goods are not for sale, was never considered, leading to ir-repairable loss to the appellant and the Govt also. 14.8 That the appellant pray for release of Gold Coin, 5 Apple Phones and Cosmetic Items only. All other goods have expired and not fit for human consumption. 14.9 That the condition for NOC under "Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order 2012"; "Foo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... others reported at 2002-TIOL-2745-SC-CUS-C.B., wherein also the initial interception and seizure was by police and thereafter the possession was shifted to the Customs officers, it was held that the pre-requisite of seizure is not satisfied. Accordingly, it was held that in such circumstances, the whole burden or onus to establish the smuggled nature of goods/gold is on the revenue which have not been discharged. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, it is a case of town seizure. 17. Further, I find that under similar facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Paradip Phosphates Ltd. 1997-96-ELT-224 (SC) have held that the admittedly the goods have been imported and cleared at Paradeep Port (Orissa State) which were seized and adjudicated by Customs Authorities in West Bengal. It was alleged that the goods were imported on the strength of fictitious licence. It was held that the jurisdiction under such facts lay with the Custom Authorities at Paradeep, and not with the Customs Authorities in West Bengal. 18. Accordingly, the following ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narayan Bishwanath (Supra), I hold that the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
