G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

1. This appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. APPL/DLH/Raj/164/80 (Order No. 145-RAJ/83) dated 21-3-1983, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, confirming the Order No. 33/50 dated 3-10-1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Customs, Ajmer, arises in the following circumstances.

2. On information, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise Customs, Ajmer, searched the residential premises of the appellant on 28-1-1980 and seized the miscellaneous goods valued at Rs. 3,675/- and clothes hosiery goods valued at Rs. 4,874/- alleged to be of foreign origin. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 4-3-1980 was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause and explain as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and why further penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112, ibid for alleged contravention of Sections 11-C, 11-D and 11-E of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Clause 3 of Import Export Order, 1955, issued under Section 3(i) of the Import Export Control Act, 1947. To which the appellant replied inter alia contending that he had not contravened the provisions of any of the sections of the Customs Act, 1962, inasmuch as that he had received all goods as gift; that Sections 11F to 11G were not contravened in the instant case; that there was no need to produce any evidence showing clearance of goods by Customs Authorities as he personally had not imported any of the seized goods. He further added that the seized articles were gifted to him/his family members by (i) Shri Arjundass Kewalramani; (ii) Shri Nanik Chandwani; (iii) Shri Lilo and (iv) Shri Ashok, who are his friends. The appellant also submitted the photostat copies of Customs Baggages Receipts and affidavits of the said five persons along with photostat copies of parcel Nos. 1575 and 1527 received from Shri Prakash No. 9540 from Shri Raman Lal from Singapore. During the personal hearing, the appellant submitted that most of the items were covered by the said affidavits and the remaining items were received from his brothers/ friends residing abroad from time to time at different occasions. He specifically pointed out that Items at Sl. Nos. 63, 71, 32. 33, 35, 37, 38 and 39 of Annexure 'A'-Recovery Memo Annexed to Panchnama prepared on the spot-were sample and Item No. 5 of Annexure 'B' was shirting cloth and not suiting cloth.

3. After the usual enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority, believing the affidavits and photostat copy of parcel filed by the appellant and also the statement of the appellant, ordered for the release of most of the goods holding that the same were legally acquired/possessed by the appellant. Regarding the remaining seized goods of S. No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 11, 12, 14, 16 to 19, 24 to 30, 36, 40 to 42, 45 to 49. 57, 58, 61, 62, 65, 67. 69, 71, 73 to 78, 82 to 86 of Annexure A and items at S. No. 3 to 7, 9 to 12, 15 to 17, 19 and 20 of Annexure B of the recovery memos annexured to panchnama dated 28-1-1980, the Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation absolutely under sections 111(d)and 118 of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that since these articles were not covered by affidavits of five persons, the same is liable to be confiscated. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2.000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, however, chased the matter in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, but without success except that the personal penalty was reduced from Rs. 2.000/- to Rs. l.000/-.

4. Shri Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended before me that the impugned goods were kept in the residential premises of the appellant and there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant had engaged in any commercial activities. On the contrary, the nature and quantity of the goods confiscated was such that it cannot be stated to be