TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not arise from the order and are not required to be referred. He also conceded that they are not properly framed. He, therefore, submitted the following 5 questions for being referred to the High Court :- (1) Whether the Customs authorities or the Board or the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide upon the question whether the Applicant who was the only claimant of the goods was the real owner of the goods even before deciding upon the question whether the order of confiscation was justified under Sec. 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962, or any other provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 even for the purposes of ultimately deciding to whom the goods should be returned if the same are not liable for confiscation. (2) Whether the Customs Authorities or the Board or the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hold that the Applicant, though the only claimant, was not the real owner of the goods and hence not the party aggrieved to challenge the Order of confiscation of the goods and/or its retention by the Department. (3) What is the meaning of the phrase coast of India under Section 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether Kamathipura in Bombay can be said to be the coast of India and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be returned to Shri Lokhandwalla from whom it was seized or to the applicant being the only claimant of the goods. Shri Parekh, therefore, prayed that the 5 questions set out above may be referred to the Hon ble High Court after drawing up a statement of the case. 4. Shri Pattekar, the Learned Departmental Representative however, urged that none of the questions is a question of law and in any case they do not arise from the order of the Tribunal in the appeal. The Tribunal s order was based on the appreciation of the evidence and therefore, the application may be rejected. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. In order to appreciate the contentions of Shri Parekh as well as Shri Pattekar it would be necessary to set out the facts as found by the Tribunal in Appeal No. CD(T) (Bom.) 17/86 and the questions that involved in that appeal and the findings of the Tribunal. It may also be necessary to briefly refer to the history of the litigation. 6. According to the Department s case on the night of 17/18th November, 1966 pursuant to a secret information that silver ingots were secreted near shop No. 5 at the junction of Bapty Road and Shankar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment of India statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. 9. During the pendency of the appeal on behalf of the appellant it was contended that they should be permitted to produce documents and had evidence. In view of the consent memo and in terms of the High Court Order the prayer was allowed. Addl. Collector of Customs (P) was directed to record evidence and accordingly the Addl. Collector recorded the evidence and forwarded the evidence so recorded to the Tribunal. Thereafter, the arguments were heard. 10. The Bench which heard the appeal formulated the following questions for consideration. (1) whether the Collector and the Board were unjustified in holding that 55 silver ingots out of 89 silver ingots seized did not belong to the appellant, (2) whether the Collector and the Board were not justified in holding that the seized silver ingots were liable to confiscation. 11. After referring to the findings of the Board and after consideration of the contentions urged before the Tribunal on point No. 1 this Bench passed the following order :- At the outset it is necessary to make it clear that the adjudication proceedings is a summ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al recorded a finding as to the ownership of the seized silver ingots. What had been considered was as to the validity of the claim made by the applicant. The appellant s claim was specific, viz. that out of 89 ingots seized by the police 55 were acquired by him. In other words, he claimed ownership in respect of 55 ingots. To substantiate his claim he produced documentary evidence. In the show cause notice issued to the appellant it was clearly stated that there was reason to believe that the bills produced by him are not genuine and the appellant was not the real owner of the goods. 14. This show cause notice which was issued to the appellant came back with an endorsement unclaimed, returned to the sender . Thereafter, the show cause notice was served on the appellant personally. Even then, he did not choose to send any reply. 15. It is because the appellant staked his claim for 55 silver ingots out of 89 ingots seized by the police, the adjudicating authority rightly proceeded to consider the claim, so also the Board and the Tribunal. In its order the Board observed that the Collector of Central Excise did not, in fact, adjudicate the case with a view of determining the ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscation passed by the Collector and confirmed by the Board. The Collector and the Board, particularly, the Board after taking into consideration the various aspects have come to the conclusion that there was an attempt to export silver. It was no doubt true that the silver was seized at Kamathipura. The chain of circumstances established in this case clearly establishes that if there had been no intervention by the police officers, the silver would have been exported out of India. May be as a first step, the silver was kept hidden at Kamathipura. This act would fall under clause (a) of Sec. 113, if not under clause (c) and therefore, we see no reason to interfere with that part of the order also. It is true that in the show cause notice it was not alleged that there was violation of clause (a) of Sec. 113 but then the legality of the show cause notice or the denial of the principles of natural justice also cannot be gone into at the instance of a person who has no claim or whose claim is unfounded to the seized goods . 20. The categorical finding of the Tribunal was that having regard to the rejection of the claim put forward by the appellant it would not be necessary to go into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
