TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; The officers of Marine and Preventive Wing of Commissionerate (Preventive) intercepted, on information, tempos outside Green Gate of Bombay Docks. The driver of tempo No. MDD-6522 produced relevant Baggage Declaration forms (hereinafter referred to as 'BDF') and other connected documents. The tempo Nos. MNP-4113 and MRQ-2609 were found to be carrying packages cleared, from Unaccompanied Baggage Centre, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'UBC'), Under BDF No. 755, dated 20-5-1999. The packages were having markings of BDF number, date and passport number and were found to contain electronic goods, like Video Cassette, Walkman, Camera, TV set etc., valued at Rs. 20,70,645/- at Local Market Value (herei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passenger Md. Ayub was sent summon at the Passport Address which was returned with the remarks of incorrect address. No other effort appears to have been made to locate him, even though the Steamer Company admits to have given delivery order to him. No effort appears on record to trace out Imtiyaz and/or Moinuddin. (d) The Commissioner (Preventive) adjudicated the matter vide his order dated 21-5-2001. After finding the Md. Ayub has not come forth to claim the goods and at the address given on BDF, Bill of Lading and Passport were fictitious he held that the passenger Md. Ayub was not a bona fide passenger entitled to Transfer of Residence facility under Baggage Rules and goods in excess of these decla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the Commissioner in Para 34 of the impugned order does not accept the same as representative of the CHA has knowledge of the baggage contents in such cases and goods are cleared and loaded in his presence. (iii) On the BDF form signature of Shri Mohammed Ayub was obtained and the value declared therein was arbitrary and without any basis as for the declaration of the passenger. The BDF was signed on behalf of CHA by him. He was not authorised to sign the same. This was in direct conflict with the statement of the Director of CHA, who had stated that he was authorised to sign. (iv) In view of the above it was concluded that the CHA, the Dock Clerk and the passenger were missing the T.R. benefit wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were used to conceal the goods found subsequently in excess. How goods, initially valued and at lesser amount, could conceal goods worth Rs. 12,25,810/- market value is not apparent from records. I, therefore, cannot share the enthusiasm of the authorities to arrive at the liability of the goods, cleared on BDF after adjudication for violations of Baggage Rules, Section 111(l) and (d) and being lower in value to be liable for confiscation under Section 119 of Customs Act, as they could not be found to conceal a much larger value goods, subsequently found, as allegedly valued by the Marine and Preventive officers. (b) Agency function of a CHA, is over, at that stage where he handed over the goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; The goods after proper examination and valuation have been confiscated and allowed to be redeemed by the proper officer of the Customs House, Mumbai in charge of UBC. The initiation of the present proceedings initiated by the M & P officers and concluded by the learned Commissioner (Preventive), to re-order confiscation, once again under provisions of Section 111(d), 111(l) and 111(m), and/or Section 119 cannot be upheld in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. In that view of the matter the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) in the present proceedings cannot be upheld. (d) The adjudication proceedings did not consider Shri Mo....