TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, releasing duty-paid VCRs and Olympic camera.</h1> <h3>ANAND JAISAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation of the VCRs and Olympic camera. It held that the VCRs, being duty-paid and ... Confiscation - Notified goods Issues:1. Confiscation of imported goods recovered from the residential and business premises.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.3. Application of Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975 to VCRs.4. Applicability of Section 11G(1) of the Customs Act to the confiscated goods.5. Confiscation of the Olympic camera recovered from the residential premises.6. Validity of the confiscation under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act.Analysis:1. The appellant was operating a videotorium where Central Excise Preventive Officers found imported goods on both residential and business premises. The adjudicating authority confiscated 2 VCRs and an Olympic camera, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.2. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant failed to prove legal entitlement to the VCRs as per Baggage Rules. However, the appellant argued that the VCRs were cleared after duty payment, not as baggage, and were in personal use, thus not violating any rules.3. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, ruling that Baggage Rules did not apply as the VCRs were duty-paid and in personal use, not for commercial purposes. The VCRs were not found to contravene any laws or notices.4. Regarding the Olympic camera, the Tribunal found that confiscation under Section 111(p) was improper as Chapter IV-A provisions did not apply to goods in residential premises under Section 11G(1). The camera's age and usage were not considered, leading to the decision to release it.5. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the camera, emphasizing that personal use, not professional photography, justified ownership. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant and dismissing the cross-objections upholding the impugned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
