9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was allowed to clear goods valued at Rs. 280/- under Rule 3 of Baggage Rules, free of duty, and, goods valued at Rs. 864/- were allowed clearance free of duty under the Transfer of Residence Rules. The petitioner had a used calculating machine valued at Rs. 972/- and this was found to be in excess of his allowance. This machine could not be released as bona fide baggage under the Baggage Rules and required an I.T.C. Licence for its import. In absence of such licence, it was held, the import of the machine was made in contravention of Import (Trade) Control Order No. 17/55, dated December 7, 1955 as amended and deemed to have been issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Such importation, it was further held rendered the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears that the petitioner filed an "Appeal for Revision Order" under the provision of Section 131 of the Indian Customs Act, 1962 to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi It is the petitioner's case that no reply was received by him to this petition. Be that as it may, he has now challenged in this Rule the orders passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay praying for appropriate writ for quashing the same. 5. There is no dispute that the Baggage Rules, 1970 apply to the facts of this case. Under Rule 2 the used articles of personal ware (excluding jewellery) and articles in personal use of a passenger for satisfying daily necessities of life and a wrist watch not exceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that the calculating machine was an office equipment and that the petitioner was an economist and he used the calculating machine during the course of his research work. For these reasons I am of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to clearance of the calculating machine free of duty and the Customs Authorities acted in excess of their powers and in contravention of Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 1970 in disallowing the petitioner clearance of the machine free of duty. 6. Though the events happened at Bombay the petitioner has elected to make his application at Calcutta. It will appear from the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the Union of India as also the Customs Authorities at New Delhi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
