1988 (6) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal Upholds Confiscation Order for Goods in Commercial Quantity

AMIN ABDULGANI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation order by the Additional Collector of Customs, ruling that the goods were in commercial quantity and not bona fide ... Confiscation and penalty Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal.2. Legitimacy of the confiscation of goods by the Additional Collector of Customs.3. Applicability of the saving clause 11(1)(g) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.4. Request for re-export of the confiscated goods.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal:The learned Departmental Representative raised a preliminary objection stating that the Order-in-Original was passed by Shri K.S. Sivaraman in his capacity as Deputy Collector of Customs, and thus, the appeal should lie before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, not this Tribunal. The appellant's advocate argued that Shri K.S. Sivaraman passed the impugned order in his capacity as Additional Collector of Customs. Evidence was provided, including a letter and a Gazette Notification, confirming Shri Sivaraman's appointment as Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi, effective from 8-12-1986. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection and decided to hear the appeal.2. Legitimacy of the confiscation of goods by the Additional Collector of Customs:The impugned Order was a spot adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi Airport, New Delhi. The passenger had declared goods worth Rs. 8300, but upon detailed examination, goods valued at Rs. 41,700 were found, including items like wristwatches, V. cassettes, cameras, walkmen, headphones, calculators, Attari games, game cassettes, walkie-talkies, and sarees. The Additional Collector concluded that items at serial Nos. 1 and 7 could be considered reasonable baggage, while others were in commercial quantity and not bona fide baggage. Thus, goods at serial Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 to 10 were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld this view, agreeing that the goods were in commercial quantity and not bona fide articles of baggage.3. Applicability of the saving clause 11(1)(g) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955:The appellant argued that the import of the goods was exempt from the Import Licence under saving clause 11(1)(g) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods did not fall within the permissible limits under the Baggage Rules, 1978, and the Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978. The goods were not personal effects or household articles and exceeded the value limits for personal use or gifts. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were not protected by the saving clause 11(1)(g) and were rightly confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Request for re-export of the confiscated goods:The appellant requested permission to re-export the goods, citing a previous Tribunal decision. However, the Tribunal noted that under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962, re-export is permissible only for goods with a true declaration under Section 77. Since the appellant did not make a true declaration, re-export was not permissible. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cited decision, noting differences such as the appellant not being a foreign national and the goods being in commercial quantity. Thus, the request for re-export was rejected.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation order of the Additional Collector of Customs and dismissed the appeal. The goods were deemed to be in commercial quantity and not bona fide baggage, and the appellant's request for re-export was denied due to the lack of a true declaration.