Customs confiscation of personal-use goods fails without proof of unlawful sale and mandatory notice compliance.

Protective provisions for notified goods kept in residential premises for personal use can bar confiscation where possession is supported by a voucher and unlawful sale or disposal is not proved. The customs record here did not establish the essential ingredients of sale or knowledge of illegal disposal by the person from whom the goods were seized. Confiscation was also unsustainable because mandatory notice and opportunity of representation under the Customs Act were not shown to have been complied with before the order. On that basis, the confiscation and personal penalties were set aside and the appellate relief was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the baggage-cleared television and video cassette recorder, and the personal penalties imposed, were sustainable in the absence of proof of sale, in view of the protective provisions applicable to notified goods kept for personal use and the requirement of compliance with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were seized from the residential premises of the first respondent and were supported by a voucher evidencing possession. The protective scheme under Section 11G of the Customs Act, 1962 excludes the operation of Sections 11D, 11E and 11F for notified goods kept in residential premises for personal use, while Section 11D requires the prescribed precaution of obtaining a voucher under Section 11F. The record did not establish that the first respondent had knowledge of any illegal disposal, nor did it show the essential ingredients of a sale by the second respondent. The order of confiscation was also vulnerable because Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires notice and opportunity of representation before confiscation, and the order did not show proper compliance with that mandatory requirement.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were not sustainable, and the relief granted by the appellate authority was in law.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed, and the order setting aside confiscation and penalty was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained unless the statutory preconditions for confiscation are met, mandatory notice requirements are complied with, and the alleged unlawful disposal or sale is proved by evidence.

---