H.V. PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the appellant despite notice. It appears from the Memorandum of Appeal that he does not want to be heard personally.

(2.) THE appellant, upon his arrival at Chennai Airport from Singapore on 11.7.99, declared before the Customs authorities that he was possessed of professional video camera and equipments valued at Rs. 8 lakhs. As these were not considered as a bona fide baggage, they were detained for further action under the Customs Act. The appellant claimed to be Executive Trustee of Avadhoota Datta Peetham, Sri Ganapathy Sachidananda Ashrama, Mysore, and stated that the goods brought by him were gifted to Avadhoota Datta Yoga Centre, USA. In the circumstances, he waived show -cause notice and requested for a lenient view. At the time of personal hearing, the appellant produced a copy of faxed letter from the Datta Yoga Centre, USA, which quoted a price of US 39,700 for the goods in question. The letter also stated that the equipment was a demonstration unit which had been used in various broadcast exhibitions. The appellant admitted that the equipment had been imported without any licence. He, further, stated that the goods were meant for Ashram activities and not for commercial use. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. In a lenient view, he refrained from imposing any penalty. The present appeal is against the Commissioner's order.

(3.) THE appellant's case is that the goods in question was not contrary to any prohibition under the Customs Act or any other law and hence were not liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The appellant has also challenged the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner. But we find that the question to be addressed is whether the goods imported as part of passenger's baggage were permitted to be so imported under the EXIM Policy. Ld. Commissioner has referred to para 5.6 of the EXIM Policy 1997 -2002 and has noted that only bona fide household and personal effects could be imported as part of passenger's baggage in terms of the EXIM Policy. Ld. Commissioner has also found that the goods in question were not household goods or personal effects to be imported as part of passenger's baggage. This finding of fact has not been rebutted in the present appeal. Hence we have to uphold the order of confiscation of the goods. Having regard to the value of the goods (over Rs. 10 lakhs), we are of the view that the redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the Commissioner reflects a lenient approach. Fairly enough, ld. Commissioner has refrained from imposing any penalty on the appellant, having regard to the fact that imported goods were to be used by an Ashram and not to be used for commercial purpose.