Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Arvinder Singh Kocher vs Collector Of Customs on 13 December, 1985

Samsuddin Sheikh vs Collector Of Customs (Prev.) on 11 September, 1989

In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Singh Kocher v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1986 (26) ELT 792 (Tribunal). In that decision the Tribunal held that the initial burden lies with the department when the goods are I neither notified under Chapter IV-A nor under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and even if it is assumed that the goods were of foreign origin that by itself would not be sufficient to order confiscation in the absence of clear evidence that they were smuggled goods. On this point we conveniently extract the observations found in the abovesaid decision which is as follows :-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tajuddin vs Collector Of Customs on 17 January, 1991

The West Regional Bench also taken a similar view in similar circumstances in the case of 'Arvinder Singh Kocher v. Collector of Customs, Bombay' -reported in 1986 (26) ELT 792 (Tribunal) and also in the case of Manoharlal T. Punjabi v. Addl. Collector of Customs (P)' 1985 (21) ELT 154. A chart is produced before me from the passports of the appellant, his wife, son, daughter and daughter-in-law for the period 1-1-1987 to 15-12-1988 which would show that all of them had made a total of 15 trips to abroad and the baggage receipts have also been produced. It is not disputed by the Department that the appellant and his family members have been frequently travelling on business to foreign country and have brought goods as baggage goods many of which have been permitted clearance duty-free and the rest on payment of duty. All the baggage receipts have also been produced for my scrutiny and were indeed made available even before the Ld. adjudicating authority and the Department has not doubted the authenticity or the genuineness of the same and indeed accepted the same. So far as Section 11G of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 is concerned, that would not be applicable in respect of the goods cleared duty-free as baggage and in this context I may usefully refer to Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 dealing with bonafide baggage exempted from payment of duty and the Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 79(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.1 also do not find any evidence on record to show that any of the foreign goods was sold by the appellant to any person. In regard to price tags on foreign goods, it was contended that it was not in all the goods but only in some of the items merely to indicate the value of the gift to the buyer of Indian goods in the departmental store. Therefore, on consideration of the evidence on record and for the reasons set out above, I set aside the order of confiscation in regard to non-notified goods valued at Rs. 10,162/- and referred to above. So far as the rest of the goods which are notified and valued at Rs. 1,3007- is concerned, I hold that they are liable for confiscation for violation of Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962 and having regard to the value, the quantity, the nature of goods namely, shaving cream, nail polish, spray, lipstick, perfume, shampoo, air refresher etc., I direct the release of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand). The appellant shall be entitled to redeem the same provided the goods are available. The appellant should exercise the above option within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant is entitled to redeem the goods without payment of duty since they are covered by valid baggage receipts. In the facts and circumstances of the case I reduce the penalty to Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand). Except for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collector Of Customs And Central Excise vs Shri Balkrishan on 6 February, 1987

In the case of Arvinder Singh Kocher v. Collector of Customs, - 1986(26) - ELT 792 this Tribunal held that the initial burden lies on the Department when the goods are neither notified under Chapter IV-A nor under Section 123 of the Customs Act and even if it is assumed that the goods (in that case T-Shirts and half shirts) were of foreign origin that by itself would not be sufficient to order confiscation in the absence of clear evidence that they were smuggled goods. On this point, the following observations may be extracted with advantages:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1