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 overturns Customs penalty on seized video camera citing valuation discrepancies and lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>SATYAJIT CHAKRABORTY Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), INB, PATNA</h3> SATYAJIT CHAKRABORTY Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), INB, PATNA - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 514 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Seizure and confiscation of a video camera by Customs Officers.2. Allegation of illegal importation and imposition of penalty.3. Valuation of the camera and imposition of duty.4. Appeal against the lower appellate authority's decision.5. Question of valuation and CIF value discrepancy.6. Contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus.7. Authenticity of the baggage receipt and burden of proof regarding smuggling.Analysis:Issue 1: Seizure and ConfiscationThe appellant, a professional photographer, appealed for the release of a seized video camera, an old Panasonic NV-M 3000 V Canon. The camera was seized by Customs Officers and a show cause notice was issued for its confiscation and penalty imposition under Notification No. 9/96-Cus.Issue 2: Allegation of Illegal ImportationThe appellant claimed that the camera was a gift and produced a deed of gift. However, the adjudicating authority deemed the camera illegally imported based on a report stating the baggage receipt was fake. The authority confiscated the camera and imposed a penalty.Issue 3: Valuation and Duty ImpositionThe lower appellate authority released the camera on payment of a fine, reduced the penalty, and valued the camera at Rs. 26,000 instead of Rs. 30,000. The authority demanded duty on the camera at CIF value of Rs. 26,000 as per Section 125 of the Customs Act.Issue 4: Appeal Against Lower AuthorityThe appellant appealed to the Tribunal against the lower authority's decision, questioning the valuation discrepancy and the basis of the Department's case under Notification No. 9/96-Cus.Issue 5: Valuation DiscrepancyThe appellant argued that the CIF value was unilaterally taken at Rs. 26,000, while the actual value from the baggage receipt was Rs. 10,000. The appellant contended that the valuation was incorrect and duty had already been paid.Issue 6: Contravention of NotificationThe Tribunal observed that the Department's case was based on a contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus, which did not apply as there was no allegation of import from Nepal. Therefore, the show cause notice and subsequent order failed on this ground.Issue 7: Burden of Proof and Smuggling AllegationThe Revenue contended that the baggage receipt was fake, indicating illegal importation. However, the Tribunal found the report vague and inconclusive. The burden of proving smuggling lay with the Department, and in the absence of concrete evidence, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the confiscation and penalty, citing lack of evidence for smuggling and discrepancies in the valuation and application of customs laws.
TaxTMI 