TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the case are that Shri Sadiq Bin Samsudeen (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) a Malaysian national arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2013. The passenger was intercepted at the green channel and when interrogated he confessed to have carried one Sony Camera DEC-VX2200E valued at Rs. 1,00,000 /- for someone. 2.1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport) vide Order-in-Original No 551/Batch B dated 06105.2013 ordered for absolute confiscation of goods under Section Ill(d), (l), (m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal order in the event of its restoration during the revision process would be grim. 4.4. The applicant placed reliance on following case laws: G.V. Ramesh and others vs CC Air Chennai 0212 (T-Mad) UOI vs Mohamed Aijaj Ahmed WP No. 49 (Born) 5. A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent on 13.11.2013, in response to which the following submissions dated 09.12.2013(received on 18.02.2013) has been made: 5.1. That the revision application filed is not maintainable as the person who has filed the said application has not been authorized by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air cargo) to file the said application in terms of Section 129 DD (IA) of the Customs Act, 1962. That the authority who has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication exhibits total non-application of mind and also ignorance of knowledge of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 5.6. That the case laws relied upon in support of this revision application have no bearing on the facts of the present case and in all those cases the item under import was gold, which was either concealed or not declared before the customs authorities at the time of import. 5.7. That under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 there is no discretion vested with either the adjudicating authority or with the appellate authority to refuse permission to redeem goods on payment of a redemption fine when the goods are not 'prohibited' for their import and admittedly one unit Sony Camera is not prohibited for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10,000/- and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. Now Department has filed this revision application under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the grounds mentioned at para 4. 9. Government observes that the main contention of the Department is the fact that respondent is a carrier and brought the goods for someone else and this fact has been ignored by the Commissioner(appeals) who has allowed the unintended benefit to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine. 10. Government notes that the record of personal hearing as given in the impugned Order-in-Original is as under: "Heard the pax. Pax intercepted at green channel and when interrogated, he confessed to have carried for someone and item not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an afterthought. 13. Government opines that any oral submission made before the adjudicating authority will be a material piece of evidence, in view of the specific admission made by the respondent before adjudicating authority. Government is inclined to hold that the respondent is a carrier of the impugned goods. 14. Government observes that the Section 79 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that the proper officer may, subject to any rules made under sub-section (2) pass free of duty any article in the baggage of a passenger in respect of which the said officer is satisfied that it is for the use of the passenger or his family or is a bonafide gift or souvenir; provided that the value of each such article and the total valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulfill the eligibility criteria it makes the imported goods prohibited goods. 15.2 Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its judgment in the case of UOI vs. Mohammed Aijaj Ahmed 2009 (244) ELT 49 (Bom.) has set aside the order of CESTAT ordering to allow redemption of gold and upheld the absolute confiscation of gold ordered by Commissioner of Customs. In this case the gold did not belong to passenger Mr. Mohammad Aijaj Ahamed who acted as carrier of gold. The said order of Bombay High Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reports as 2010 (253) ELT E83 (SC). 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 &nb....