AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 196D OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1969 Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND VAT, JIBON BIMA BHABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 196D of the Customs Act, 1969, is directed against the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal (respondent no.1), as communicated vide Nothi No. CEVT/Case(cus) 303/62 dated 20.3.2003, preferred by the appellant against the order dated 5.9.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Dhaka confiscating the goods in view of the provision under Clauses 8 and 9(1) of the Table of Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(2.) Short facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant Md. Jashimuddin holding Passport No. L-0525321 went to Singapore on 25.10.1995 for doing work therein. But, unfortunately, the Emigration Office at Singapore Airport did not provide him necessary Port Entry Visa to enter Singapore and the appellant was deported to Bangladesh through air on the next day on 26.10.1995. It has been contended that appellant's brother Md. Badal was working at Singapore who purchased 2 kg. gold bar, 200 grams gold chain and a Movie Video camera by his own money worth about Tk. 9,46,895/- who gave the same to the appellant through another passenger of the same flight with a view to recovery of the Air fare incurred by him for his brother i.e. the appellant. The appellant arrived at the then Zia International Airport on 26.10.1995 and declared as per the relevant Baggage Rules about the goods carried by him with a view to pay applicable tax and duties payable on the said goods. But the customs authority, instead of taking applicable tax and duties, seized those goods alleging, inter-alia, that since the appellant did not get any visa to enter into the Singapore, he will not be eligible to get benefit of Baggage Rules. Therefore, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why the seized goods would not be confiscated in favour of the State and why he would not be punished under Clauses 8 and 9(1) of the Table of Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. Accordingly, the appellant replied to the said show cause notice on 3.3.1996 contending, inter-alia, that the goods were not smuggled one and as per Baggage Rules he was entitled to bring those goods into Bangladesh on payment of applicable tax and duties thereof. Thereafter, the matter was adjudicated by the respondent no. 2 Commissioner of Customs who upon hearing the appellant and the representative of the customs authority confiscated the seized goods in favour of the State in view of the provision of clauses 8 and 9(1) of the Table of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 vide order dated 5.9.1996. Being aggrieved with the adjudication order of the commissioner of customs, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Vat Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, whereupon the Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal and, thereby, affirmed the order of the commissioner of customs. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appellant approached this Court invoking section 196D of the Customs Act, 1969 by filing the aforesaid customs appeal.

(3.) This appeal is contested by the customs authorities through Mr. Tapash Kumar Biswas, learned Deputy Attorney General.