Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
V Chandra Sekhar Reddy Rep By vs Cce&St, Hyderabad on 20 July, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench Single Member Bench Court I Appeal No. C/25136/2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 70/2012 (H-II) Customs, dated 26.09.2012 passed by CCE&ST, Hyderabad) V Chandra Sekhar Reddy Rep by Dr. Chandra Sekhar Reddy ..Appellant(s) Vs. CCE&ST, HYDERABAD ..Respondent(s)
Appearance None for the Appellant Shri M. Chandra Bose, Addl. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing : 20.07.2017 Date of decision: 20.07.2017 FINAL ORDER No___________ [Order per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran]
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 70/2012 (H-II) Customs, dated 26.09.2012.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant.
3. This matter was listed on 04.04.2017 on which date the appellant was unrepresented but the Bench suo-motto granted adjournment as a last chance and informed the appellant. A vakalatnama was filed by one Advocate Shri M. Taraka Srinivasa Rao and on that day the Advocate was specifically informed that the matter stands adjourned to 12.06.2017 and will be taken up for disposal. There was no Single Member Bench on 12.06.2017 and the matter got adjourned to 20.07.2017 i.e. today under a notice with specific instructions that this is the last chance for the appellant to appear before the Tribunal and argue the matter. Despite such notice, none appeared to argue the matter today.
4. Heard the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the records.
5. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the entire issue is regarding the confiscation of the consignment imported by the appellant. It was the case of the appellant before the lower authorities that he has returned back from Middle East permanently and hence brought back his household goods under Baggage Rules (transfer of residence) through container as an unaccompanied baggage. The said container was examined by the authorities and it was found that in addition to used household goods, new items like 14 split Air Conditioners, 05 Refrigerators, 11 boxes of lighting fixtures and one unit of modular kitchen were found and noticed were in commercial quantity and they were detained/seized. The matter was adjudicated by the lower authorities and the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith applicable customs duty. It is stated by the Ld. DR that the appellant had cleared the goods on payment of duty and also redemption fine and penalty.
6. I find from the records that the appellant is not able to justify the presence of brand new Air Conditioners, Refrigerators, Lighting fixtures and Modular kitchen and in such huge quantity which is unacceptable that they are as used house hold goods. I find that the first appellate authority has correctly came to a conclusion which is in para 7.1 and 7.2 of the impugned order, which is reproduced:
7.1 - The appellant has failed to file baggage declaration on 19.03.2012. The documents filed along with the baggage declaration with the Customs, the goods were declared by the appellant to be his personal use. On examination of the same the goods were found in commercial quantity, in as much as the appellant brought in excess quantity as prescribed in the said rules; the invoices produced by the appellant were issued in the name of a company and not on the appellants name. The evidence available on record at the time of adjudication clearly indicated that the goods are not bonafide baggge of the appellant. The purported proof in the form of statement of account furnished by the company showing the debit of the invoice value from the Appellants account is dated 26.04.2012 whereas the impugned Order-in-Original was passed on 26.3.2012. Thus, the said document was not in consideration at the time of adjudication of the case.
7.2 - The appellant submit that the said goods were purchased by the company on his behalf, to avail the discount; the cost of the goods purchased is debited by the company to appellants account, the appellant produced a letter dated 19.02.2012 issued by M/s Trans Gulf Electromechanical LLC. On verification of an invoice No. LT/CIPL/LT0005/2012 issued by M/s LITE-Tech Industries is dated 15.03.2012, where as the letter issued by M/s Trans Gulf Electromechanical LLC is dated 19.02.2012. I observe that the letter dated 19.02.2012 produced by the appellant is an after thought and proved to be false, to claim the goods covered under the invoices as part of his baggage. I find that the appellant had not produced any proof on record beyond doubt that the said goods are meant for his personal use and it is bonafide baggage which are otherwise in commercial quantity. Therefore, appellant is liable for penal action and the lower authority is justified in confiscating the goods and imposing fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962.
7. In the absence of any justification as to why such commercial quantity of brand new goods has been imported alongwith used house hold goods in the container, the adjudicating authority as well as first appellant authority were correct in coming to the conclusion that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation and consequent penalty. In my considered view, both the authorities were correct in coming to such conclusion and accordingly I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Order dictated & pronounced in open court) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) VRG Appeal No. C/25136/2013 (5) Appeal No. C/25136/2013 (1)