1983 (2) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vered. On demand, Shri Gupta did not produce any document showing the lawful acquisition/import of goods. After investigation, a notice was issued on 18-6-77 by the Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive), Delhi, to the party to show cause why the said lenses should not be confiscated u/s lll(d) of the Customs Act 1962, for violation of Section 11 read with Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 issued under Section 3 of the Imports & Exports Control Act, 1947. In his reply and during personal hearing, Shri Radhakrishan pleaded that these lenses had been imported under Bill of Entry No. 1576/131, dated 20-3-71 at Bombay Port against an Import Licence dated 6-5-70 and that these lenses had been released after imposing a fine in lieu of confis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tor that in the absence of any records showing consumption of the goods imported at Bombay, their stand was not acceptable. While upholding the order of the Assistant Collector, however, an option was given to the party to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. A revision application was then filed before the Government of India and this has been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal to be dealt with in accordance with Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act. 5. Shri B. Saxena, Advocate for the Appellant, submitted a letter of authority from a firm named 'Delton', who had an import licence as actual users, under which Shri Gupta had imported lenses from USA. These lenses were released after....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Collector to prove the lawful import, they had been denied justice. The order of the Appellate Collector is also against the law since there could not be two adjudication orders namely, by the Assistant Collectors, Bombay and Delhi, for the same goods. Counsel pleaded that the order may be set aside and the goods restored. 6. The case for the Department was argued by Shri Yuvraj Gupta, Senior Departmental Representative. He pointed out that if the party had made 'Voluntary Disclosure' of receipt of 3000 lenses to the Income Tax authorities, they should have maintained proper accounts to satisfy the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at the time of seizure. He did not agree that the term "bifocal" was synonymous wit....