TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficers of Customs intercepted and examined in detail the baggage of Shri Thoufiq Musaffer, holder of Indiana passport bearing no. G-7649979 arrived by flight no. SQ 422 from Singapore with a suspicion of mis-declaration. The examination under punchnama resulted in recovery of non bonafide baggage items such as 2000 pieces of memory cards and 426 pieces of assorted wrist watches which were valued at Rs. 23,11,378 /- and Rs. 38,50,970 /- (LMV). It was noticed that the applicant had mis-declared the goods in both quantity and in value and hence the goods were seized under reasonable belief that these constituted non bonafide baggage in trade quantity, and therefore, liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act 1962. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e it was established that the confiscated goods were indeed disposed by the Disposal Unit for Rs. 18,75,311/- in the month of September 2010 as per the provisions of Section 110 (1B) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.5. The refund sanctioning authority vide Order-in-Original No.DC/Refund/65R/2011 dated 17.10.2011 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 5,42,059/- after deducting the fine penalty and duty from the realized amount. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUTM-PAX-app-70/13-14 dated 18.06.2013 rejected the appeal of the applicant. 4. The applicant has now filed this Revision Application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Central Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so issued to the Respondent Commissionerate on 18.08.2015, in response to which the following submissions have been made: 5.1. That the grounds of appeal is unsubstantiated and without any valid basis. 5.2. That the department disposed the seized goods in the very interest of the revenue as provided under Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5.3. That the applicant has no locus stand to appeal against the refund order since he already filed claim and received the refund of the sanctioned amount in the refund order, indicating that he accepted the same. 5.4. That entry of goods into India from a foreign origin attracts duty as per provisions of Customs Act, 1962, irrespective of whether -consumed by the importer or anyone else. That pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Act, 1962. In his voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 he admitted the he was not the owner of the impugned goods but just a carrier working for a monetary gain. A Show Cause Notice was issued to him and subsequently the case was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. ADC/KPC/ADJN/59/2010-11 dated 10.01.2011 ordering confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 23,11,378/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption-fine-Rs.4,00,000 /- which had to be exercised-within thirty day from the date of receipt of the order and imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 /- on the applicant. The applicant through his advocate vide letter dated 27.01.2011 informed the department that he wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) an order passed by the Board or the Appellate Commissioner of Customs under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, either before or after the appointed day, under section 130, as it stood immediately before that day. Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to, (a) any goods imported or exported as baggage; (b) any goods loaded in a conveyance for importation into India, but which are not unloaded at their place of destination in India, or so much of the quantity of such goods....