Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 358 - MADRAS HIGH COURTConfiscation of goods - Procedure in case of goods not cleared, warehoused, or transhipped within thirty days after unloading- Whether the first respondent is right in relying on Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 when the said Section has no application at all to the facts of the case - Held that:- On facts, the original authority found that there was no relinquishment of goods by the original buyer and there could have been no such relinquishment, more so, when the Customs authorities have already seized the goods for violation of conditions of advance licence. The claim made by the appellant was after long lapse of time, by then the property was vested with the Government. Appellant pointed out that the Tribunal in Paragraph No. 7 of the Order has referred to Section 48 of the Act and the said provision has absolutely no relevance. In our view, the misreading of the observations made by the Tribunal has led to such a ground being raised by the appellant. The Tribunal has referred to Section 48 of the Act to state that it contemplates clearance on import of goods within thirty days from its landing and this applies to the person who filed the bill of entry on 8-9-2003 viz., Sandip Exports Limited. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in referring to Section 48 of the Act while taking note of the conduct of M/s. Sandip Exports Limited. So far as the claim made by the appellant the Tribunal noted that the appellant made its claim in December 2003 only after the offence was detected by the Customs Authorities and the goods were seized. That apart, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty imposed on M/s. Sandip Exports Limited and therefore rightly pointed out that there would be loss of public revenue if the appellant is allowed to clear the impugned goods on payment of normal duty and only on normal redemption fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal earlier which was set aside by this Court in [2009 (11) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee.
|