AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amsuddin Malik after he filed Baggage Declaration from dated 23.07.2011, for clearance of his baggage and declared the goods as 'personal effects' valued only at Rs. 10,000/-. The said baggage was opened and examined in the presence of two independent witnesses and Shri Shamsuddin Malik. The following goods, collectively value at Rs. 31,07,178/- were recovered under the panchanama dated 23.07.2011:- 1. 2 GB Micro SD Cards (unbranded) 8300 pcs 2. GB Micro SD Cards (Kingston Brand) 14000 pcs 3. Nikon Brand Coolpix Digital Camera 02 pc 4. Blackberry mobile phone 8100 01 pc 5. Apple IPad 64 GB 03 pcs 6. Fabric (Suit length) 88.3 mtrs 2.1 the statement of Shri shamsuddin malik was recorded on 23.7.2011 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 as given in para 3 of the impugned Order-in-Original wherein he interalia stated that on the instructions from one Shri Dildar singh, who had promised him to give Rs. 3/- per memory card, he brought 22300 nos of memory cards along with other goods; that he met Shri Didar Singh approximately 2 months back in Gaffar Market, Delhi; that he sad to talk to Shri Didar Singh often of he knew that Shri Didar singh was dealing in memory cards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that Shri Dildar singh made 20-25 times call to Shri shamsuddin Malik in and around Customs House, New Delhi. 2.4 After due process of law, the adjudicating authority decided the case vide Order-in-Original dated 19.10.2012 wherein he ordered as blew:- (a) Ordered of the absolute confiscation of the goods collectively valued at Rs. 31,07,178/- in terms of provisions of Section 111 (i), (I) & (m) of the customs Act, 1962 as the owner of the goods did not claim the goods (b) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs only) on Shri shamsuddin Malik in terms of section 114 AA of the customs Act, 1962. (c) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rs. Fifteen lacs only) on Shri Didar Singh in terms of Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, respondents filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who modified the Order-in-Original and allowed the impugned goods to be released to Shri Shamsuddin Malik for home consumption on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lacs) as redemption fine. Penalty imposed upon him was reduced from Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs) to Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lac) and penalty imposed on Shri Didar Singh was reduced fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 108 of customs Act, 1962. Assuming, had Shri Shamsuddin Malik had not admitted to the fact of being carrier of the gods in his statement, the goods could be released on redemption fine, then the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in imposing low redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- considering the value of goods involved any gravity of the offence. 4.3 That the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in reducing the penalty on both the appellants imposed under the adjudication order for smuggling of goods valued at Rs. 31,0,7178/- by way of outright concealment and mis-declaration as part of unaccompanied baggage. The adjudicating officer had rightly confiscated the goods absolutely and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Shri Shamsuddin Malik and Rs. 15,00,000/- on Shri Didar Singh respectively under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. That this has been reduced ny Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- on Shri Shamsuddin Malik and Shri Didar Singh respectively. That the penalty has been modified/reduced to an unjustifiable low lever. It has repeatedly been held by the Tribunal that quants of penalty should be such that it act as deterrent for other recalcitrant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned Order-in-Appeal NO.CCA/I&G/01/02/2013 dated 07.01.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi should be set aside and Order-in-Original is restored/upheld. (ii) Or pass such order as the Government of India, may deem fit, proper and appropriate in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. 5. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 to file their counter reply but no reply was received in this regard from the respondents. 6. Personal hearing in this case was fixed on 16.03.15, 08/04.15, 21.04.2015,13.05.2015 and 09.09.2015. Hearing was attended by Shri P.K. Srivastava, Superintendent, Customs (SIIB) on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Neither the respondents nor their authorized the ground of revision application. Neither the respondents nor their authorized representative attended the personal hearing grinded from time to time by Revisionary Authority nor sought any adjournment. Hence Government proceeds to decide the case on the basis of available case records pertaining to the case. 7. Government has carefully gone through t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scation have been righty allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) and whether penalty imposed on the respondents been rightly reduced or not. 10. Government notes is is an undisputed fact on record that the impugned goods totally valued at Rs. 31,07,178/- are n commercial/trade quantity and do not constitute bonafide personal effects under Section 79 ibid read with the EXIM policy in force and the passenger neither made a true declaration of the goods nor declared true quantity and value. therefore, he contravened the provisions of Section 77 and 79 of the Customs Act. In terms of CBEC's Circular No. 29/200-Cus dated 11.04.2000 import of goods in commercial quantity would not be permissible within the scope of baggage rules, ever on payment of duty. Reliance is also placed on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia Vs Commissioner of customs, Delhi 2003(155)ELT 423(SC) wherein is is held that the goods which can be imported subject to certain conditions and if conditions not fulfilled, it has to be treated as prohibited goods. The respondent was not eligible to import the impugned goods and were imported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught to escape from the penal action at the hands of Customs Authorities Government, therefore, holds that in the present case the goods imported by the passenger as a carrier are liable for absolute confiscation as rightly pleaded by the department. 12. Government's views as above also find support in the decision of Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Mohammad Aijaj Ahmed 2010 (235) ELT E83 (SC) wherein it has upheld order of Mumbai High Court wherein release of gold to passenger who acted as carrier was not allowed and absolute confiscation was upheld further the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai in the case of S. Faisal Khan vs. Joint Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Chennai 2010 (259) ELT 541 (Mad) upheld absolute confiscation of goods carried on behalf of someone else for a monetary consideration. In the case of Ram Kumar vs. commissioner of Customs 2015 (320) ELT 368 (Del) also the Hon'ble High court of Delhi has held that carrier is not entitled to benefit of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. 13. In view of above, government holds that the original adjudicating authority has rightly ordered absolute confiscation of the impugned goods and that the commissioner (Appeals) has ....