9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 10 - HC - CustomsRight of appropriation of the gold and gold jewellery recovered and confiscated by the Customs Department - 45 kg. of gold was loaned by the MMTC to Mr. S S Kanda (NRI) who failed to export ornaments of about 19 kgs - S.S. Kanda in breach of the conditions imposed by the MMTC pledged the gold with Indian Bank vanished - who has its first charge/lien over the hypothecated stocks of gold and jewellery? - Held that - The confiscation of the the imported gold can only be for the purpose of recovering the aforesaid amounts. Confiscation of the goods does not mean that the Customs Department can appropriate the property in the imported goods even after recovering the entire duty penalty and interest. It is submitted that the goods imported were not contraband items whose import was prohibited under the law at the relevant time. The import of the gold was valid and legal. It was only on account of the then prevalent governmental scheme vide the aforesaid exemption notification that duty free import was permitted on the condition that the manufactured goods would be exported. Since the present proceedings arise out of the original proceedings before the DRT the Customs Department cannot be permitted to stake a claim on the said recovered gold either at the appellate stage or in these proceedings. So far as the Indian Bank is concerned the said bank did not act in good faith and with due care and diligence while granting loan to Sh.S.S. Kanda on the basis of security of the imported gold. He submits that the Indian Bank should have required Sh.S.S. Kanda to produce documents of title to the said imported gold.Since that was not done the said bank cannot claim any charge or lien over the imported gold. While acting as a canalizing agency had loaned the gold to Sh.S.S. Kanda with the condition that the same would not be sold or hypothecated by him. He further submits that the Indian Bank did not put the MMTC to notice before granting credit facilities to Sh.S.S. Kanda against the gold loaned by MMTC. Thus der cannot be sustained and the finding returned by the DRAT that the first charge over the recovered gold is that of the Indian Bank is liable to be set aside. Confiscation of imported goods (import whereof is not prohibited in law) is done only as a means to recover its dues by the Customs Department. It does not mean that the Department can appropriate the said goods forever even when the penalty duty and other charges are paid by the importer. Admittedly the Customs Department has already recovered its entire customs duty penalty interest amounting to Rs. 2.27 Crores from the MMTC in respect of the 19 Kgs. of gold which was not utilized by Shri S.S.Kanda for export of jewellery.That being the position no further claim of the Customs Department in respect of the said gold can survive. As Sh.S.S. Kanda did not have ownership rights in the gold and did not create a valid pledge/hypothecation over the said gold in favour of the Indian Bank set aside the impugned order passed by the DRAT dated 04.02.2011 and restore the order of the DRT dated 22.02.2005 insofar as it holds that the MMTC has the first charge over the recovered gold.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Priority of Charge/Lien over the Recovered Gold and Jewellery between Indian Bank and MMTC Legal Framework and Precedents: The dispute involved principles of charge creation, ownership rights, and priority of claims over hypothecated goods. The Indian Bank relied on precedents where banks holding valid charges over goods had priority, citing decisions such as Central Bank of India v. Siriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. and UTI Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, which dealt with priority of bank charges over crown debts. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the documentary evidence and undertakings executed by Shri S.S. Kanda. It was established that MMTC had loaned 45 kg of gold to Shri Kanda on the condition that it would be converted into jewellery and exported, and that no encumbrance would be created over the gold. The property in the gold remained with the foreign supplier and MMTC, and Shri Kanda did not have ownership rights to create a valid charge over the gold. The Indian Bank's hypothecation agreements dated 4.4.1990 covered plant, machinery, and goods at the factory, but the gold in question was loaned later (from 13.9.1991 onwards) by MMTC and was not owned by Shri Kanda. The Bank failed to verify title or ownership before granting loans secured by the gold. The Court held that to create a valid charge, the chargor must have legal title, which Shri Kanda lacked in respect of the gold loaned by MMTC. Key Evidence and Findings: Undertakings executed by Shri Kanda, stock verification reports, confiscation orders, and hypothecation agreements were critical. The DRT had earlier held MMTC had first charge over the gold, Indian Bank had first charge over plant and machinery. The DRAT reversed this, giving Indian Bank priority over gold as well. Application of Law to Facts: The Court restored the DRT's finding that MMTC had first charge over the gold, as the Indian Bank's charge was invalid due to lack of ownership by Shri Kanda and absence of due diligence by the Bank. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Indian Bank argued bona fide lending and reliance on possession of gold. MMTC argued that the gold was loaned property with conditions preventing encumbrance. The Court favored MMTC's position, emphasizing the importance of ownership for valid charge creation. Conclusion: MMTC holds the first charge/lien over the recovered gold and jewellery. The Indian Bank's claim over the gold is invalid. Issue 2: Rights of the Customs Department over the Confiscated Gold Legal Framework and Precedents: The Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 12, 46, 124, 125, 126, and 142, govern confiscation and recovery of customs duties and penalties. Section 125 provides for option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Section 126 vests confiscated goods in the Central Government. Section 142 bars adjudication of customs dues in other proceedings. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that confiscation under the Customs Act is primarily a mechanism to recover customs duty, penalty, and interest. Confiscation does not automatically vest absolute ownership in the Customs Department unless the importer fails to pay the fine, duty, and charges. The option under Section 125 allows the importer to pay a fine instead of confiscation, and only on failure to pay does ownership vest in the Government under Section 126. In the present case, the importer (MMTC) had already paid the entire customs duty, penalty, and interest (Rs. 2.27 Crores) in respect of the 19 kg of gold that was not exported as jewellery. Therefore, the Customs Department had no further right to appropriate or claim ownership over the gold. Key Evidence and Findings: The confiscation order dated 20.06.2000 was not appealed against and thus final. However, the Customs Department did not contest the DRT proceedings to stake claim on the recovered gold. The Department's claim before the Court was vague and lacked a prayer for declaration of ownership. Application of Law to Facts: The Court read Sections 125 and 126 together, concluding that confiscation is conditional and does not confer unconditional ownership on the Customs Department once dues are paid. The Department's claim to ownership was therefore untenable. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Customs Department argued that confiscation vested ownership in the Government and that the Department's rights are governed exclusively by the Customs Act. The Court rejected this, emphasizing the conditional nature of confiscation and the Department's failure to pursue claims properly in earlier proceedings. Conclusion: The Customs Department's claim to the gold was dismissed as the dues were fully recovered and no legal provision entitles the Department to appropriate the gold thereafter. Issue 3: Validity and Effect of the Confiscation Order Legal Framework: Section 124 of the Customs Act empowers the Commissioner of Customs to confiscate goods in certain circumstances. Such orders are appealable. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the confiscation order dated 20.06.2000 had attained finality as no appeal was filed. The Court declined to entertain challenges to the validity of the confiscation order in the writ petitions, as the order was appealable and final. Application of Law to Facts: Since the confiscation order was final, the Court proceeded on the assumption that the confiscation was valid for the limited purpose of adjudicating priority of claims over the gold. Conclusion: The validity of the confiscation order was not reopened; it was treated as final and binding. Issue 4: Consequences of Failure to Fulfill Export Obligation under Exemption Notification Legal Framework: The exemption notifications under Section 25 of the Customs Act allowed duty-free import of gold and silver on condition of export of jewellery within a stipulated time. Failure to fulfill export obligation attracts liability to pay customs duty and other charges under Section 46(3). Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: MMTC was permitted duty-free import as a canalizing agency under the scheme. Shri S.S. Kanda, the manufacturer-exporter, failed to export jewellery made from 19 kg of gold loaned by MMTC. Consequently, MMTC became liable to pay customs duty and penalties, which it did. The Court held that this failure triggered the liability to pay customs duty but did not affect the ownership rights of MMTC over the gold. Conclusion: Failure to export jewellery resulted in liability to pay customs duty and penalty, but did not transfer ownership of the gold to the Customs Department or Indian Bank. Issue 5: Rights and Liabilities of the Parties Inter Se and the Role of Due Diligence Legal Framework: Principles of property law, charge creation, and due diligence in lending apply. The person creating a charge must have title to the goods. The creditor bank must exercise due diligence to verify title before granting loans secured by goods. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Indian Bank failed to verify title and ownership of the gold before granting loans secured by hypothecation of the gold and jewellery. The gold was loaned by MMTC and remained its property. Shri Kanda had undertaken not to create any charge over it. The Bank's failure to obtain title documents or verify ownership was held to be gross negligence, and the Bank cannot claim any charge or lien over the gold. Conclusion: The Indian Bank's claim over the gold is invalid due to lack of ownership by the chargor and failure of due diligence by the Bank. MMTC's claim, based on loan and undertakings, is valid. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The gold issued by the MMTC was the property of the foreign supplier being on loan basis and no charge could be created by Shri Surjit Singh Kanda in favour of any of the said gold. Shri Surjit Singh Kanda undertook to keep the gold free from all encumbrances/appropriation." "To be able to effectually and validly create hypothecation over an article, the person creating the charge should have legal and valid title over the article. The Indian Bank ought to have done its due diligence to find out that the title in the gold vests with Shri S.S. Kanda before accepting the same as a security for grant of loans & facilities to Shri S.S. Kanda. Having not done that, in our view, the Indian Bank cannot claim any right, title or interest over the said gold." "Confiscation of the imported goods under the said Act does not vest unconditional right, title and interest in such confiscated goods in the Customs Department. The confiscation order would not take effect if the importer exercises the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Only on failure to pay such fine, duty and charges does the Customs Department get the right to deal with the goods as its own." "The Customs Department has already recovered its entire customs duty, penalty & interest amounting to Rs. 2.27 Crores from the MMTC in respect of the 19 Kgs. of gold which was not utilized for export of jewellery. No further claim of the Customs Department in respect of the said gold can survive." "The findings of the DRAT that the first charge over the recovered gold is that of the Indian Bank is liable to be set aside. The finding returned by the DRT that the first charge over the said gold is that of the MMTC is a correct finding and is restored." Final determinations:
|
