Sandeep Balkrishna Kulkarni vs Union of India

Kapdia, J.—By this petition, petitioner seeks to challenge action on the part of respondent No. 3 in not allowing petitioner''s transfer of residence claim in respect of three items. Facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows :-

Petitioner left India for Dubai for employment on March 29, 1984. Petitioner arrived back in India on April 3, 1986 after completing two years of employment in Dubai on contract basis. Petitioner was therefore entitled under Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 to bring free of customs duty household items which he had purchased during his stay in Dubai. Petitioner arrived in India on April 3, 1986 and sought clearance of the three items under Form No. 007208, dated April 8, 1986. After examination of the goods, respondent No 3. granted transfer of residence concession to the petitioner in respect of all items except the three items viz. Video Cassette Recorder, Music System and Recorded Video Cassettes. The concession was denied to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that there was no sign of the said goods being used in Dubai during the period of two years and that on visual inspection of the said items, there was nothing to show that the said goods were used in Dubai. Respondent No. 3 also rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the goods were found in original packing and in the circumstances, respondent No. 3 rejected the petitioner''s claim for concession. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had produced before the respondent No. 3 necessary documents with regard to Video Cassette Recorder containing the literature to show that the said V.C.R. was introduced in the market and it was purchased by the petitioner in July 1984. As regards the Music System also, petitioner produced the relevant documents to show that it was purchased on July 13, 1984 and as regards the Recorded Video Cassettes, petitioner also produced the evidence to show that purchase was effected during his stay in Dubai. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that on several occasions the petitioner purchased items and some times has not kept the warranty in respect of the purchase made abroad, but on that ground alone the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the said concession. Petitioner also drew our attention to the value of the items mentioned above. He also drew out attention to the finding of the respondent No. 3 with regard to the said items and submitted that the said items definitely constitute small items which the petitioner purchased during his stay in Dubai. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that looking to the said items and their value, both the Authorities below erred in denying to the petitioner his legitimate claim for concession. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, drew our attention to the order of the Appellate Authority and contended that in the absence of warranty and the proper evidence to show purchase of the said items by the petitioner during his stay in Dubai, the Authorities below were right in rejecting the petitioner''s claim. One more aspect may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner has paid duty on certain other miscellaneous items like furniture, which also indicate that the value of the said items is very small.

We find considerable merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The bills produced by the petitioner indicate that ''Akai'' VS-6 Video Cassette Recorder was introduced in Dubai before the petitioner purchased the same. This document also indicates not only the literature indicating introduction of the said item in Dubai but also its purchase by the petitioner during his stay in Dubai. The documents indicate that very small items have been purchased during his stay. The value of the said items is also very small. In the above circumstances, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, petition succeeds, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) with no order as to costs.