Tribunal ruling: Release of camera equipment, upheld confiscation of cassettes, reduced fine

RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BHUBANESWAR

RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BHUBANESWAR - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 483 (Tribunal) Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods recovered during a search operation.
2. Verification of lawful importation based on baggage receipts.
3. Allegation of smuggling and burden of proof on the Revenue.
4. Applicability of Customs Act provisions on confiscated goods.
5. Determination of penalty and fine amounts.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the confiscation of goods recovered during a search operation at the appellant's office premises, including a video camera, VCR, battery chargers, battery packs, and video cassettes. The Deputy Collector of Customs had initially ordered absolute confiscation, which was later converted to confiscation on payment of a fine of 100% by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

2. The appellant's representative argued that there was clear evidence of lawful importation of the video camera and VCR through baggage receipts, which were verified by the Cochin Customs House. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to show that the battery chargers and packs were smuggled goods, as they were not notified under relevant Customs Act sections. However, the video cassettes were acknowledged to be notified goods under the Act.

3. The Revenue contended that the xerox copies of the baggage receipts were insufficient evidence of lawful importation, especially since there were no signatures endorsing the sale of goods to the appellant. They argued that the lack of evidence for the purchase of other goods indicated they were smuggled.

4. The Tribunal judge analyzed the evidence presented by both parties. They found that the baggage receipts for the video camera and VCR were genuine, with matching marks and numbers, indicating lawful importation. As the burden was on the Customs authorities to verify the sales from the passengers, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant for the video camera and VCR. However, the judge upheld the confiscation of the video cassettes due to the appellant's failure to prove their lawful importation or purchase.

5. The judge ordered the release of the video camera, VCR, battery chargers, and battery packs, while upholding the confiscation of the video cassettes with a reduced fine of 50%. The appellant was directed to pay duty separately for the video cassettes as per the Customs Act provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by allowing the release of certain goods while upholding the confiscation of others based on the evidence presented and the provisions of the Customs Act.