9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are ab initio void, wholly holding without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The respondents Customs Authority is directed to return the seized/confiscated goods to the appellant forthwith, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appellant or his authorised representative - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Custom Appeal No. 51680 of 2021 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 50464/2022 - Dated:- 12-5-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. Arun Goyal, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts are as follows: 2. On the basis of information that the appellant Shri Yogesh Kumar Vishnani was carrying smuggled goods, the officers of the ATS, Ajmer and officers of Customs CGST, Ajmer, intercepted him at Ajmer Railway Station, who was travelling by Yoga Express from Ahemdabad. The appellant was de-boarded at Ajmer Railway Station with his baggage. On preliminary examination by the ATS officers, it was found that appellant was carrying goods (foreign origin) in commercial quantity. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Approved Valuer-Shri Shrivallabh Mayach was called upon on the spot. Shri Mayach after thorough examination confirmed that the recovered coins were made of Gold. Shri Mayach also submitted certificate No. 646 dated 25-10-2018 according to which total quantity of Gold recovered from the appellant was 45 gms of 98% purity valued at Rs. 1,43,325/-. The value of the Commercial goods was ascertained at Rs. 8,74,550/- by the officers. 6. The appellant in his statement dated 25-10-2018 tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in compliance of the summon dated 25-10-2018 issued by the Superintendent Customs (Preventive) Hqrs, Jaipur, categorically admitted the recovery of Gold coins and commercial goods total valued at Rs. 10,17,875/- from his baggage which he brought from Dubai and he did not pay Customs duty. He also stated that he has been working as part time Sales man at Hot deals Tourism Company at Dubai and frequently comes to India. He used to come at various Airports (Jaipur, Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata) from Dubai; that he started working as carrier (bringing goods of other people from Dubai to India and carrying goods of others from India to Dubai) since 2017 to inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tte bars (tota 960 Cigarete sticks) four Tobacco packets (total 1 kg Tobacco) valued at Rs. 8,74,550/- under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled with intent to evade Customs duty, as such liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act ibid. The officers also seized the Four bags including one brown bag marked pigeon , one blue bag marked lucky bag house , one red trolley bag marked VIP and one black laptop bag (having no commercial value) under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 being liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The officers also seized ticket booking invoice no. A8100306889 and three baggage tag SG 0775865157, SG 0775864447 under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 as evidence. The entire proceeding of search and seizure of the goods was conducted before two independent witnesses and the appellant. A Panchnama dated 25-10-2018 along with Seizure Memo dated 25-10-2018 to this effect were drawn on the spot. 8. Follow up searches were conducted at the residence of appellant i.e. 182/58, Pratapnagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan and residence of Shri Bharat Thadani i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arun Goyal inter alia urges as follows:- 14.1 The Show Cause Notice and the adjudication is done beyond or without jurisdiction. Admittedly Baggage Rules have been invoked and alleged that the appellant deboarded or arrived at A bad International Airport. It is an admitted fact that the goods were assessed at Nil rate of duty at Ahemdabad port. The declaration submitted by the appellant before the Customs at Ahemdabad and thereby allowance at Nil rate of duty has been deliberately obscured and it is not in the means of the appellant to produce it. Noteable case law in the matter being Canon India Pvt Ltd-2021-TIOL-123-SCCUS- LB and Ramnarain Bishwanath Versus Collector of Customs, Calcutta, reported at 1988 (34) E.L.T. 202 (Tribunal) upheld both by High Court and Apex Court. 14.2 That there is not a single letter from A bad Customs that the appellant did not deboard with his friend Kamlesh, Prakash Babloo or that the seized goods were not declared in their Customs Declaration Form Even there is no statement of the appellant that he did not declare the goods in the Customs Declaration Form. 14.3 That admittedly the appellant was apprehended by Police and then handed over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law prohibit him to import or bring it in baggage. Only duty could have been demanded which has not been done in the matter. Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs UOIRajasthan High Court in DB CWP No. 12001/2020 dated 17/2/2022. 14.14 That in the absence of DECLARATION at the Customs Airport, Ahemdabad, it cannot be alleged that they were mis-declared and were liable for confiscation. None of the provisions so invoked are applicable in absence of any Customs declaration so submitted by the appellant at the Airport. 14.15 In the light of above facts and position of law and the averments the appellant prays to allow the appeal, impugned orders may be set aside and goods lying with the department may be ordered to be released unconditionally. 15. Learned AR for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 16. Having considered rival contentions, I find that the whole case of the revenue is made out on the allegation that the appellant had arrived from Dubai at the Ahmadabad Airport, which is the Customs Station. Thus, for the allegations contained in the show cause notice, particularly, there being violation of the baggage Rules, the jurisdiction in the matter was with the Customs Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
