TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne and therefore the adjudicating authority having secured the waiver of Show Cause Notice passed the spot adjudication order dated 06.05.2013 and confiscated the goods absolutely under Section Ill(d),(l),(m) &(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 (3) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Section 79 of the Customs Act,1962 and the Baggage Rules made there under. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed upon the pax under Section 112(a). 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 28.06.13 set aside the Order-in-Original and gave option to the pax to redeem the impugned goods on payment of duty and redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5000/under Section 112 of the Act, ibid. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has field this revision application under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 That the order of Commissioner (Appeals) does not discuss why the concession of redemption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in response to which the following submissions dated 09.03.2013(received on 18.03.2013) 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 filed the present application has used the powers solely vested with the Commissioner of Customs, which ought not to be permitted to be sustained by the Revisionary Authority without prejudice. 5.2. That there is nothing wrong in the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in permitting redemption of the one unit Sony Camera which by no stretch of imagination could be considered as 'Prohibited Goods'. 5.3. That at the time of personal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that other than the camera the respondent did not carry with him nor had with him in his possession anything dutiable other than the Sony Camera. That the respondent himself went up to the Customs Authorities to ascertain whether any duty was payable for the import of the said c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....someone else. As the respondent attempted to smuggle one Sony high end camera without declaring it to Customs, in contravention of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 and during the course of hearing before the adjudicating authority the passenger admitted the fact that he had brought the impugned goods for somebody else. The impugned Order-in-Original ordered the absolute confiscation of the goods under Section Ill (d),(l),(m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development & regulations) Act, 1992. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act, ibid was also imposed upon respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 907/2013 dated 28.06.2013 allowed redemption of the impugned goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000 and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000. Now the Department has filed this Revision Application under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962 on the grounds 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 bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree 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 value of all such articles does not exceed such limits as may be specified in the rules. In this case, the respondent walked through the green channel without declaring the goods he possessed much in excess of the prescribed baggage allowance which clearly shows that he wished to evade duty involved on the impugned goods brought by him for someone else. The goods are clearly not bonafide baggage and rightly held as liable for confiscation. 15. In the present case as the passenger has brought the goods for someone else and acted as a carrier. Therefore, the impugned goods cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. Government places reliance on the following decisions of the higher courts the ratio of which is squarely applicable to the instant case: 15.1. The Apex Court in the case of 0m Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs Delhi reported in 2003(155) ELT 423 (SC) has categorically held that if there is....