JIWA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner came to India on September 4, 1988 after two years' of stay abroad. He brought with him household personal effects which included one C.T.R. 2092 Sony 20" and a National V.C.R. G-130. The petitioner claimed benefit of Transfer of Residence Rules in respect of all the above items including C.T.V. and V.C.R. on the ground he had been personally using the same for more than one year. The petitioner also filed a purchase vouch herdated 23rd June, 1987 in respect of T.V. and V.C.R. The Assistant Collector of (Air Customs) inspected ail the said items. He granted concession under Transfer of Residence Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'T.R. Rules') in respect of all items including C.T.V. set but rejected the petitioner's claim in respect of V.C.R. on the ground that it was new and less than one year old.

(2.) The petitioner filed an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting T.R. claim in respect of V.C.R. In the appeal it has argued on behalf of the petitioner that the purchase voucher dated June 23, 1987 was geniune and the above model of V.C.R. was available in the market for the last three years. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeal by his order dated September 29. 1988 observing that the petitioner's plea that the said V.C R. of the said model was available three years ago was not backed by any evidence and that the V.C.R. was found to be brand new. He further observed that when Baggage Officer allowed the T.R. claim in respect of C.T.V. which was found to be used, there was no reason to doubt his finding tt the V.C.R. was brand new.

(3.) The petitioner filed a revision application against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals). It was argued on behalf of the petitioner before the Revisional Authority that the invoice dated June 23. 1987 was genuine and it covered two items viz. the V.C.R. and the C.T.V. and whereas C.T.V. was allowed to be cleared under T.R. Rules, the V.C.R. was not allowed. Further the said model of the V.C.R. was available in the market for the last three years. The Revisional Authority by his order dated December, 26, 1988 rejected the icvision application observing as follows ;- Government have carefully gone through the records and the written as well as oral submissions made by the petitioner. Government observe that T.R. benefit in respect of one V.C.R. has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that the same was found to be brand new and the said model was launched only a few months back. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to disprove the said findings of the lower authorities except the invoice mentioned supra. Nor the petitioner has produced any evidence to substantiate his averment that the said model was available in the market three years back. In the result. Government find no sufficient grounds warranting interference with the order of the appellate authority."