9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itating courier import-export clearances. Several courier companies for various reasons do not clear the goods imported by their clients (the importers) through the courier mode. Such goods imported through the courier mode are invariably detained by the Customs departments and remain in the custody of the Customs department, the appellants periodically collect together such goods and put the same up for auction after following the prescribed procedure and obtaining customs approval in respect of such auctions. 2.2 One such auction was conducted by the appellants on 27th May, 2006, which was designated as Auction No. 1/2006. A list containing shipments proposed to be included in auction was forwarded to the customs authorities on 11th Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from the date of issue of the said letter, failing which the said packages would be disposed of in auction and no correspondence would be entertained by the appellants in respect of the same. 2.7 The said letter was received by Jeena & Company on 19th April, 2006, but the Jeena & Company did not respond to the letter issued by the respondent. 2.8 Despite the said notice, they did not intimate the appellant in any manner as regard the said goods. 2.9 The appellant further advertised the auction in the various newspapers and the said auction was conducted on 27th May, 2006 in the presence of the duly designated officer of the Customs Department. 2.10 A Bill of Entry No. 3174 dated 23th May, 2006 was filed in the prescribed manner wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h April, 2006. (viii) The appellants were not informed about the entire sequence of the events and facts as they were the only custodians of the Customs department and have no knowledge nor are they required to have any such knowledge of the activities of the importers or their courier agents or of the detained goods. (ix) But on the other hand the department was having full knowledge of these proceedings. 4. On 19th September, 2007 a demand notice was served on the appellant for payment of differential duty out of the duty demand of Rs.2,15,868/-. It was alleged that without taking no objection from the department, the appellants sold the said goods at a price of Rs.9,720/- in auction on 27th May, 2006. It is further alleged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eds respectively provided that such goods can be sold only after giving notice to the importer. The appellants have claimed that the departmental circulars are not binding on them and hence they were not required to inform the importer about the disposal of the goods. It may be true that the departmental circulars were not binding on them but provisions of Section 48 and Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 were certainly binding on the appellants. Thus, the appellant's contention that by informing the courier company they have discharged their obligation, does not find support in the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants could have discharged their obligation under the provisions of Section 48 and Section 150 of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
