1992 (6) TMI 103 - AT - Customs

Tribunal sets aside Customs confiscation order, emphasizes personal use exemption.

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order of goods brought as baggage by the appellant under the Customs Act. It found that the appellant had declared ... Baggage - Confiscation Issues:- Confiscation of goods brought as baggage by the appellant- Allegation of smuggling and violation of Customs Act- Request for re-export of goods- Interpretation of Section 111(d) and Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962- Declaration of goods under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962- Consideration of goods as bona fide baggage- Principles of confiscation and re-export under Customs lawsConfiscation of Goods Brought as Baggage:The appeal was filed against the order confiscating goods brought as baggage by the appellant. The Additional Collector of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that the goods were part of an organized smuggling operation. The appellant argued that he declared the goods under Section 77 of the Customs Act by opting for the Red Channel and should be allowed to re-export the goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's intention to declare the goods was evident by choosing the Red Channel, and there was no evidence of smuggling as the goods were seized after inventory, not in excess of the declaration.Allegation of Smuggling and Violation of Customs Act:The Department contended that the goods in the appellant's baggage were in large quantities, indicating commercial purposes rather than personal use, thus violating Section 111(1) of the Customs Act. The Department also argued that the request for re-export could not be granted due to lack of invoicing details. However, the appellant maintained that any quantity of goods could be imported on payment of duty, and confiscation was unwarranted.Request for Re-Export of Goods:The appellant requested re-export of the goods, citing his short trip abroad and the goods being brought as baggage. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's request for re-export was made after the inventory, and to grant re-export, the goods must belong to a specific person with detailed particulars. As the appellant was an Indian national returning after a short trip, the Tribunal found the request for re-export unnecessary.Interpretation of Customs Act Sections:The Tribunal interpreted Section 111(d) and Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that a violation occurs when goods exceed the declaration. Since the appellant intended to declare the goods by opting for the Red Channel, there was no contravention of these sections.Consideration of Goods as Bona Fide Baggage:The concept of bona fide baggage was discussed, highlighting that baggage rules permit the import of personal and household effects within free allowances. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant's goods were considered baggage under Section 77 of the Customs Act, and confiscation was not justified.Principles of Confiscation and Re-Export under Customs Laws:The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order and directed the release of goods to the appellant upon payment of assessed duty. It emphasized that the re-export of goods requires specific details of the owner, which the appellant failed to provide. The appeal was disposed of, ordering the release of goods upon payment of duty, as assessed.