Repairer exemption under Customs law defeats confiscation and penalty where goods were held in ordinary course of business.

A repairer of electronic goods was held exempt from the obligation to notify, account for, and prove lawful import of notified goods under the Customs Act when the goods were found in his repair shop and entered in the shop register. The authorities failed to apply that exemption and relied on a minor discrepancy between the receipt and the panchnama description. The Section 123 presumption did not override the factual position that he was only a repairer acting in the ordinary course of business. Confiscation and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the seized goods were ordered to be returned with refund of any penalty paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a repairer of electronic goods was exempt from the obligation to notify, account for, and prove lawful import of notified goods under the Customs Act, and whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained on the facts.

Analysis: The appellant was a regular repairer and the goods were seized from his repair shop after being entered in the shop register. Repairers of notified goods were exempted from the requirements of notifying the goods to the proper officer, maintaining accounts in the manner contended, and ensuring lawful import, though they were required to maintain a repair booklet and issue duplicate receipts. The authorities below failed to consider this exemption and relied on a minor discrepancy in the receipt and panchnama description. The presumption and burden under Section 123 did not displace the factual position that the appellant was only a repairer acting in the ordinary course of his business.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside, and the seized goods were directed to be returned with refund of penalty if paid.

---