SASHIKANTA MAHAPATRA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta dated 17-3-1986.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Collectorate, Bhubaneswar, on 19-11-1983 seized one Video Cassette Recorder and a Sony Colour TV, Japan, valuing Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively from the appellant and the appellant produced two baggage receipts before the Customs officers with respect to the above articles and these two articles were seized on 19-11-1983 under a panchnama.

(3.) THEREAFTER, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Preventive), Bhubaneswar narrating the seizure to the abovesaid properties as well as the baggage receipts. It was also brought to the notice of the appellant that since no valid documentary evidence was made available substantiating the legal importation or acquisition of the goods under seizure, the same should have been imported illegally without a valid import licence and it was also stated in the Show Cause Notice that the provisions of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 issued under Section 3(1) of the Import & Export (Control) Act, 1946, as amended, read with Section 11 and Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962 were violated and the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (p) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penal action should not be taken against him. As against this show cause notice, the appellant filed his reply. It was stated in the reply that the baggage receipt No. 22/31 dated 8-7-1983 of the Madras Airport is with respect to the Sony T.V. Colour and the baggage receipt No. 07621 dated 30-6-1983 of Trivandrum Airport is in respect of National VCR. The former one for the TV is in the name of K. Mohammad Ali, Madras, and the latter one for VCR is in the name of Mrs. Brinda Gusai, Bombay. It was also contended in the reply that the said sets were actually in domestic use. It was also stated that the appellant had no reason to suspect any mala fide in the deal of the subject goods when baggage receipts were made over to him by the abovesaid persons. It was one Murali who gave the documents to the appellants and he claimed protection under Section 110 of the Customs Act. It was also contended that the TV was mortgaged to him and, therefore, there was no sale. Alternatively, it was contended that he had paid a substantial amount to the purchase of the VCR and that he should not be made to suffer for the faults of others, if any.