TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (12) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant option for re-shipment of the goods on payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Additional Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the appellant. 2. The appellant arrived at Bombay Sahar Airport on 28-6-1991. The Department's case is that he initially wanted to go through the green channel but screening of his baggage indicated presence of 53 plastic bags and therefore his baggage was examined in detail leading to the recovery of the diamond dust in 53 plastic containers and 27 plastic bags. On 1-7-1997 he gave a statement in which he inter alia stated that he is a proprietor of a firm M/s. Gshai Inc. in New York dealing in import and export business. He stated that after receiving baggage from coveyor belt he procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and imposed the penalty on the appellant as stated above. 3. Shri V.S. Nankani, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, citing case law argued that even in the Additional Commissioner's order there is evidence to indicate that the goods imported by the appellant were to be re-exported to Singapore. The Additional Commissioner himself has held that the offence of not declaring the correct value of the goods is a technical offence. In such circumstances the ld. Counsel argued that there should be no redemption fine or personal penalty for which reliance was placed on the Tribunal decision reported in - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 268 (Tribunal) = 1991 (37) ECR 405 in the case of Allen Bradley India v. Collector wherein the Tribunal has held that merely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trusted to Customs under Section 80, there was no import of goods within the meaning of Customs Act and as such goods need not be seized for confiscation under Section 110, 111(d) of the Customs Act. 4. Shri V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR pointed that declaration of any baggage under Section 77 of the Customs Act required complete declaration of all the particulars regarding the goods which would include the declaration of its correct value. The appellant here, though was present when the inventory of the goods were taken and still even at that time did not disclose the correct value of the goods and the value he ultimately declared was substantially lower than the value as appraised by the experts. There was vast difference between the two. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary and done even in cases where goods are deposited in the warehouse pending their reshipment or clearance on payment of duty. At this stage, i.e. before his actual moving to Walk-Through Channel for screening or clearing purpose, Supdt. Munishwar approached him and interrogated him. Shri Shah declared goods including packets of synthetic diamond dust kept in his baggage and sought guidance for reshipment. Since Shri Shah was a NRI and goods were meant for reshipment, written declaration of goods was required for reshipment purpose; Shri Munishwar made endorsement Rs. 1 to 5' on Shri Shah's gate pass. This was done in consultation with AC (Baggage) who was present in Walk-Through Channel area. Accordingly, Shri Shah went to counter No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Bhatia and Munishwar were taken on different dates and relevant declaration book of the counter No.1 officer was resumed. It was perhaps at this stage that interpolation on the reverse of the gate pass to the effect that on screening and opening Shri Shah's suitcases 53 packets of diamond dust were noticed, was made which has not been found in consistence or conformity with the reports of Supdts. & Notice, Panchanama and the statement. Inconsistency and in some places contradiction in the reports, statement, and Panchanama and Notice etc. have been discussed in the forgoing paras. Missing of the papers, especially declaration book of Shri Nikal which was resumed by Investigation Officers, ITC papers dated 28-6-1991, office copy of summons....