ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Custom officers Porbandar searched the residential premises of the respondent on 04.12.1997 and seized the following items in the belief that they were smuggled. The items are –
i) One Sony TV.
ii) One Panasonic VCR
iii) Compact disc of Sony.
iv) Sony Video CD/Laser Disc.
The respondent stated to have purchased the same from shops at Porbandar. While the notified goods dealer denied having supplied the item, the Sony brand products were admitted to have been procured from the authorised dealer of Sony goods at Ahemedabad and sold to the respondent. The lower authorities confiscated three items i.e. Sony TV, Panasonic VCR and National Air Conditioner and gave a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. a) In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) on ground that goods are not notified goods and the burden falls on the dependent to prove the smuggle on the depot is not destroyed and that bills of purchase were produced the goods were ordered to be released after setting aside the penalty.
b) Revenue has come up in this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds –
i) Initial burden not discharged since the shopkeeper of M/s. JK Notified Goods Shop denied having sold the goods.
ii) Rely upon 1991 (52) ELT 251; 1983 (12) ELT 849; 1986 (25) ELT 1001; 1992 (61) ELT 676.
iii) No bills of purchase shown at the time of seizure.
3. Considered. It is found that –
a) Acquisition invoices have been produced and found to be genuine and goods not even confiscated. The notified dealer’s refusal itself has to be considered as motivated.
b) After the liberalization of imports, such goods on being imported and this is no ban of resale thereof even when cleared in baggage. The case law relied upon are seizures made under total ban or restricted imports cannot be applied in the liberal regime of import.
c) Notified goods kept in the house in single piece need no control systems, etc. The case of {1992 (61) ELT 76} and other cases were seizure of large quantities and not from residential use. The case law relied upon will not help the Revenue’s case.
d) Nothing amiss is found in Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order.
4. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
5. Ordered accordingly.