TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case in brief are that acting on a specific information the officers of Lucknow Customs intercepted one Shri Harmeet Singh Chawla S/o. Shri Swaroop Singh Chawla on Amousi Charbagh Road, Lucknow on 22-4-2004 while he was coming from Amausi Air Port, Lucknow in a Tata Sumo Vehicle and recovered miscellaneous foreign origin goods valued at Rs. 2,31,000/- from his possession. Shri Chawla arrived from Dubai to Lucknow on 22-4-2004 by the Air India Flight No. IC-884 and checked out at Amousi Air Port, Lucknow through green channel without declaring the said goods before Customs authorities. 2.1 The goods recovered from the possession of Shri Chawla were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the officer of Lucknow Customs,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, Customs, Lucknow whereby seized goods were ordered for absolute confiscation and personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed upon him. Against the said order an appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals). The then Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) Lucknow observed that Order-in-Original No. 19/2004 is non speaking on the basic issue of valuation as such she set aside the said order-in-original and remanded back the case to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication with the direction to get the goods revalued. 2.6 During the course of de novo adjudication it was found that the seized goods had already been disposed of and as such revaluation was not possible. Hence the value already assessed by Deputy Commissioner, Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. Aggrieved with said order-in-appeal, the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (P), Lucknow filed this revision application on the following grounds :- 4.1 The appellate authority had mentioned that "while remanding the matter back to the original adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 29- Cus/2005 dated 31-10-2005, Commissioner (Appeal) observed that the benefit of free baggage allowance can be extended to such goods which are found to be bona fide baggage and not in commercial quantity even to seizures of undeclared baggage made outside the Airport. The adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the parameters of remand order [refer para 8.2 of the O-I-A]. Yet the appellate authority had not considered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) also, the reduction of penalty does not appear to be correct. The purpose behind imposition of heavy penalty is to wipes out the margin of profit & also acts as deterrent against repeat offences. Reduction of penalty will not discourage such offences. The appellate authority has failed to appreciate this fact. The appellate authority had not seen this crucial fact while passing the appellate order. 5. In response to show cause notice issued under Section 129DD of Custom Act, 1962, the respondents made following submissions :- 5.1 That the revision application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because the order-in-appeal No. 29-Cus./2005 dated 31-10-2005 has attained finality being unchallenged. Which has alr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declared by the noticee in view of the fact that the sale proceeds was more or less the same i.e. 27,430/- (Refer Para 8.1). 5.3 That the noticee and his father are Ayurvedic Practitioner and are engaged in giving medical treatment to patients suffering from spondilitis, cervical & back bone diseases in India as well as abroad specifically in the Dubai, UAE. The appellant along with his father used to visit abroad off and on to attend their patients. The noticee has not contravened any of the provision of the customs Act because he was aware of the fact that the value of goods brought by him comes under free allowance and therefore there is no need for declaring the same. There is no wilful mis-declaration. This fact can be furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de baggage and not in commercial quantity even to seizures of undeclared baggage made outside the Airport. This order has attained finality being unchallenged. Still the adjudicating authority has denied the free baggage allowance to the appellant which is a gross judicial indiscipline in the eyes of law. The Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the parameters of remand order. The impugned order is, therefore, deserves to be set aside and benefit of the confiscation of remaining goods i.e. 150 meters of synthetic cloth valued at Rs. 7500/- and the goods valued at Rs. 110/- (25,110-25,000) total valued at Rs. 7,610 is justified". The argument given by Department that goods are in commercial quantity does not hold go....