TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (5) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 19-11-1983 seized one Video Cassette Recorder and a Sony Colour TV, Japan, valuing Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively from the appellant and the appellant produced two baggage receipts before the Customs officers with respect to the above articles and these two articles were seized on 19-11-1983 under a panchnama. 3. Before the seizure of these two articles, verification was done by the Central Excise department with respect to these two baggage receipts and it was found that the receipt with respect to the Sony T.V. is a genuine one, but the Customs authorities of Trivandrum reported that the baggage receipt with respect to the VCR is a fake one. 4. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant by the Assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c use. It was also stated that the appellant had no reason to suspect any mala fide in the deal of the subject goods when baggage receipts were made over to him by the abovesaid persons. It was one Murali who gave the documents to the appellants and he claimed protection under Section 110 of the Customs Act. It was also contended that the TV was mortgaged to him and, therefore, there was no sale. Alternatively, it was contended that he had paid a substantial amount to the purchase of the VCR and that he should not be made to suffer for the faults of others, if any. 5. After the receipt of the reply, adjudication proceedings were taken against the appellant and the learned Deputy Collector confiscated both these articles and further impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in reply to the Show Cause Notice and before the authorities is that he had taken this item on mortgage. Therefore, it cannot be stated that he had taken the same under sale. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the appellant relied on a decision reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. Page 320 wherein at Para-4 the North Regional Bench held as follows :- "I have carefully considered the findings in respect of the two VCRs advanced on both sides. I immediately agree with the learned advocate for the appellant that the Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975 do not apply to the two VCRs, on the ground that both these sets have been cleared from the baggage after due payment of duty and not under exemption from duty. I also agree with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods does not appear to have been prohibited under the ITC Public Notice 27/80, dated 15-7-1980." 9. We are in respectful agreement with the abovesaid proposition and, therefore, the transaction by mortgage does not appear to have been prohibited. In such circumstances, the order of confiscation of the TV is to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for the same. 10. As far as the VCR is concerned, it is seen that the same was covered under a baggage receipt No. 07621 dated 30-6-1983. On verification from the Trivandrum Airport it was reported that the same is a forged one. This fact that it is a forged one was also intimated to the appellant through the Show Cause Notice but the answer of the appellant is that he had no requisite ....