1. Shri Abdul Gaffar, 10/2, Watgunge Street, Caicutta-23, being aggrieved from Order No. Cal-Cus-3213/82, dated 11-11-1982 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta, filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on the 21st day of February, 1983 in the form of letter and was not on proper form. The Registry had intimated the defect to the appellant vide letter No.CD(T)Cal-40/83, dt. 26th March, 1983 and in response to the same the appellant filed the appeal on proper form on the 7th day of May, 1983.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Indian Passport holder dated 29th Sept. '78 vide No. N.267447. The appellant had left for Bangkok on the 9th August, 1982 and returned back on the 1.4th August, 1982 for sight-seeing. The appellant had landed at Calcutta Airport vide flight No. TG/311 on 14th August, 1982 and as per Detention/ Seizure, Passenger's Baggage-Cus-Landing Declaration there were 44 items from Sl.No. 1 to 44 and the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Calcutta had released the goods as per Sl.Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 35 to 37, 41 and 44. The remaining goods valued at Rs. 4,509/- were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and personal penalty of Rs. 250/- was also levied on the appellant.
3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant had filed the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who had upheld the order of confiscation of the goods in the inventory list at Sl. Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 32. The remaining goods were revalued at Rs. 1,382/-and allowed to be cleared according to the rules. The personal penalty of Rs. 250/- was also waived in full.
4. Shri Vijay Prahladka, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has filed a written letter to the effect that he has withdrawn the valuation matter in this appeal and has also mentioned therein that the order-in-original was received by him on or after 23rd November, 1982. He has pleaded that the original appeal in the form of letter was filed within the statutory period of three months from the date of service. The appellant was not conversant with the change of rules. Thereafter he filed the appeal on the prescribed form after receiving the intimation of the defects in filing of appeal. He has further pleaded that this intimation of defects was received by the appellant's relative and the appellant was out of station and as such the defects could not be removed earlier. He has pleaded that since the original appeal in the form of letter was in time the submission of appeal was also in time. If at all there is any delay the same may kindly be condoned. On merits, the learned Advocate has argued that the goods brought by the appellant are for the use of the appellant's family and are also for personal use and some of the goods are gifts to be given to the appellant's relatives. He has submitted that it is the first visit of the appellant. The appellant had gone in a sight-seeing trip and after landing at the Calcutta Airport the appellant was passing through Red Channel and had duly declared all the goods. He has pleaded that the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) being personal belongings and for personal use. He has pleaded that the goods should be released on payment of appropriate duty and in the alternative he has pleaded that necessary permission for re-export of the goods may be allowed.
5. In reply, Shri A.K. Deb Roy, Sr. D.R. has pleaded that the appellant's stay outside India was less than a week and the maximum allowance the appellant can avail was Rs. l,000/- which has been duly allowed by the Asstt. Collector. The goods brought by the appellant are much more and are of commercial nature and as such the appellant is not entitled to get the same released and had pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
6. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I uphold the findings of the Collector (Appeals) as the goods brought by the appellant are of commercial nature. Since the original appeal was filed within time the delay in filing of appeal on the prescribed form is condoned as the same was in the form of compliance to the intimation of defects by the Registry.
The Appeal is dismissed.