2017 (6) TMI 1055 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds confiscation of memory cards worth Rs. 25,75,875 under Customs Act

Asif Iqbal Khatri Versus Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mumbai

The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of 'memory cards' valued at Rs. 25,75,875 seized from appellant's baggage at Mumbai airport under section ... Absolute confiscation - penalty - memory cards - The allegation against the appellant is that these goods of commercial nature were attempted to be removed from the customs area in the guise of personal baggage - Held that: - The appellant has, all along stated and, claimed that the goods were handed over to him by its owner for clearance. Admittedly, the goods do not belong to the appellant and he is not put to any detriment, financially or otherwise, by the absolute confiscation. On the contrary, it would render him liable to discharge the duties liability thereon. For this reason, the plea that he be granted the option to redeem the goods does not appear to be tenable. The goods being rendered liable for confiscation, it necessarily follows that penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is liable to be imposed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues involved:1. Challenge against absolute confiscation of 'memory cards' under Customs Act, 1962.2. Imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.Detailed analysis:1. The appellant challenged the absolute confiscation of 'memory cards' valued at Rs. 25,75,875 seized from his baggage at Mumbai airport. The allegation was that the goods of commercial nature were being removed from the customs area as personal baggage. The appellant claimed he intended to pay duty but was prevented by officers. He contested the confession obtained under duress and questioned the seizure proceedings. The appellant sought the return of goods and challenged the penalty imposed. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not entitled to clearance as baggage and were liable for confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, even if declared at the counter.2. The appellant argued that the goods were handed over to him by the owner for clearance, but he would not suffer any financial detriment from the confiscation. The Tribunal found the plea for redemption of goods not tenable as the goods were liable for confiscation. Consequently, the penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, was imposed as the goods were confiscated. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The plea for quashing the penalty was deemed untenable without sufficient justification. The decision was pronounced in court in May 2017.