Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2006 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (6) TMI 117 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTHospital Equipment - Demand (Customs) - Powers Of Customs Authorities - confiscation of goods - seeking to recover duty u/s 125 - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that the duty liability u/s 47 is on the importer, whereas, the duty liability u/s 125(2) is on the owner of the goods. This distinction is made by the legislature because once the goods are cleared u/s 47, there is every possibility that the goods may change hands. To obviate any difficulty in recovering duty payable on such goods, the legislature has provided that, where the goods are confiscated with an option to redeem the goods by imposing fine in lieu of confiscation, then on imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation the duty and charges payable have to be paid by the owner of such goods. Thus, we do not find any merit in the argument of the petitioner that the judgment delivered in the case of Wockhardt Hospital needs reconsideration. Since the issues raised in this appeal are squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Wockhardt Hospital (Customs Appeal No. 22 of 2004) [2006 (4) TMI 137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], we answer the questions raised in this appeal by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the customs authorities are justified in seeking to recover duty from the assessee u/s 125 of the Customs Act even though the assessee has not opted to redeem the goods by paying fine in lieu of confiscation. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
|