Commissioner of Customs Vs. J.T. Parekh and Co. and Shri Dilip

Commissioner of Customs vs J.T. Parekh and Co. and Shri Dilip

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 31, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32883

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/32883
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Oct 31, 2003
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

J.T. Parekh and Co. and Shri Dilip

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(167)ELT77Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....against the orders of customs (appeals) who set aside the confiscation of certain consumer goods of foreign origin seized from the shop premises of the appellants after concluding that the goods are neither notified under chapter 11-a of the customs act, 1962 and under section 123 thereof the onus on the department to prove the smuggled nature has not been discharged. the grounds taken by revenue are - (i) rely upon tribunal's decision in the case reported in 1991 (52) elt 251, 1983 (12) elt 849, 1986 (25) elt 1001, 1992 (61) elt 676. (ii) the inability to produce any document for the goods and admission that goods are of foreign origin.2. after hearing the dr and considering the fats on record, it is found - a) goods under seizure on 22.01.1998 in the shop premises were 28 cameras, 2 calculators, 3 video game cassettes, 1 walkman, 3 wristwatches, 7 deodorants, 5 spray bottles, 2 hair dryers, and a packet containing us dollars 2077 and british pound 1660. b) commissioner of customs (appeals) has upheld the confiscation of foreign currency and reduced the penalty from rs. 1,00,000/- to rs. 10,000/- and rs. 5,000/- on the firm and the partner respectively. c) the case law relied is found to be of seizures made earlier to 1992 when there was a sea change in the exim policy. while earlier every import was banned till licensed the new law permitted, all goods importable till restricted. the baggage imports were not only liberalized but also the ban of resale of goods imported in baggage was lifted. the quantities are not enormous are freely available and tradeable, merely because they are of foreign origin and bills are not available can only be a presumption but not lead to a belief that they are smuggled. the goods are notified. the case law in 1992 (61) elt 676, relied by revenue was for notified goods is not therefore applicable.3. in view of the findings, there is no case for upsetting the commissioner of customs (appeals) order. appeals are therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue is in appeal against the orders of Customs (Appeals) who set aside the confiscation of certain consumer goods of foreign origin seized from the shop premises of the appellants after concluding that the goods are neither notified under Chapter 11-A of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 123 thereof the onus on the department to prove the smuggled nature has not been discharged. The grounds taken by Revenue are - (i) Rely upon Tribunal's decision in the case reported in 1991 (52) ELT 251, 1983 (12) ELT 849, 1986 (25) ELT 1001, 1992 (61) ELT 676.

(ii) The inability to produce any document for the goods and admission that goods are of foreign origin.

2. After hearing the DR and considering the fats on record, it is found - a) Goods under seizure on 22.01.1998 in the shop premises were 28 cameras, 2 calculators, 3 video game cassettes, 1 walkman, 3 wristwatches, 7 deodorants, 5 spray bottles, 2 hair dryers, and a packet containing US dollars 2077 and British Pound 1660.

b) Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of foreign currency and reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- on the firm and the partner respectively.

c) The case law relied is found to be of seizures made earlier to 1992 when there was a sea change in the EXIM Policy. While earlier every import was banned till licensed the new law permitted, all goods importable till restricted. The Baggage imports were not only liberalized but also the ban of resale of goods imported in Baggage was lifted. The quantities are not enormous are freely available and tradeable, merely because they are of foreign origin and bills are not available can only be a presumption but not lead to a belief that they are smuggled. The goods are notified. The case law in 1992 (61) ELT 676, relied by Revenue was for notified goods is not therefore applicable.

3. In view of the findings, there is no case for upsetting the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order. Appeals are therefore dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs J.T. Parekh and Co. and Shri Dilip Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T S.S.