TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etained. A penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on Manoj Metal Industries (the appellant herein) and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the Appellant Inland Road Service. 2. Briefly stated facts of the cases are that in a series of raids conducted on information, during the period from 30-1-1989 to 7-2-1989 Customs Officers of Calcutta, Customs Preventive detained zinc and lead ingots of foreign origin in the godowns of M/s. New Indian Roadways, M/s. Bentley Goods Transport Corporation, M/s. Inland Road Service and M/s. Juneja Delhi-Calcutta-Bombay Carriers (all transport companies located at Calcutta) by issuing orders under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Altogether nine cases were booked against File Nos SI (VI)29/89P, SI (VI)31/89P, SI (VI)33/89P, SI (VI)35/89P, SI (VI) 36/89P, SI (VI) 37/89P, SI (VI) 40/89P, SI(VI) 41/89P and SI (VI)43/89P. In total 2261 pcs. of zinc ingot and 1810 pcs. of lead ingot were detained/seized. Goods under detention/seizure are totally valued at Rs.14,01,305/- CIF. Though the consignment Notes mentioned the names of the consignors and the consignees, none from their side came forward to claim ownership of the goods in question. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. Jaswant Metal Stores, M/s. Indian Metal Works, M/s. Gambhir Metal Stores, M/s. Manoj Metal Industries and M/s. Bestley Goods Transport Corporation were made parties to the Show Cause Notice dated 26-7-1989 issued from File No. SI(VI)35/89P and in view of the allegations contained in the said notice the parties were called upon to explain the matter in writing and to show cause to the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, Custom House, Calcutta within 20 days from the date of issue of the notice as to (i) why the goods under seizure should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and (ii) why penal action should not be taken against them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice dated, 27-7-1989 issued from File No. SI (VI)36/89P M/s. Juneja Delhi-Calcutta-Bombay Carriers, M/s. Deepak Metals, M/s. Raj Metals and M/s. Manoj Metal Industries were called upon to explain the matter in writing and to Show Cause to the Collector of Customs (Preven.), West Bengal, Custom Houe, Calcutta within 20 days from the date of issue of the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation, M/s. Jaswant Metal Stores, M/s. Premier Metal Industries and M/s. Manoj Metal Industries were called upon to explain the matter in writing and to show cause to the Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal Custom House Calcutta within 20 days from the date of issue of the said notice as to (i) why the goods under seizure should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and (ii) why penal action should not be taken against them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. The Appellants were issued with Show Cause Notices. They filed replies. Personal hearing was granted and the impugned order was passed. 6. Shri P.K. Agarwal, appearing for the Appellant Manoj Metal Industries firstly contended before us that the learned Collector had ordered for the release of 66 pcs. of zinc ingots, 244 pcs. of zinc ingots, 241 pcs. of zinc ingots, 195 pcs. of zinc ingots, 854 pcs. of zinc ingots and 456 pcs. of zinc ingots. But he contended that the learned adjudicatng Officer held that the same was to be released on condition of production of no objection certificates from the Transport Companies under custody of which firms the said goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscated in this case tallied with the average weight of the zinc ingots which were obtained from M.M.T.C. He also pointed out that the adjudicating Officer erred in holding that the goods confiscated in this case are not the same which were obtained from M.M.T.C. He also pointed out that the learned adjudicating Officer erred in holding that it was for the Appellants to prove the legal imports. It was his contention that it is for the department to prove that these are smuggled goods. He also contended that the learned Collector erred in confiscating the goods absolutely without giving an option for redumption. It was also his contention that the learned Collector even did not discuss about the value of the goods and without arriving at the value he imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the Appellants. Even otherwise, he contended that the imposition of penalty on the Appellant is in accordance with the law. He, therefore, prayed that the confiscation order as well as the imposition of penalty on the Appellants may be set aside and the Appeal may be allowed. 8. The learned Advocate Shri J.P. Khaitan along with Shri S.K. Poddar, Consultant appeared for Appelants M/s. Inland Roa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None of the Transport Companies have claimed the ownership. Therefore, the goods seized, as mentioned above, belong to the Appellants. The adjudicating Officer also came to the conclusion that these are not foreign goods and they are indigenous in nature. In that view of the matter, when these goods are released, they should be released unconditionally to the Appellants and the question of getting a no objection certificate from the transport companies does not arise. In fact, none of the transport companies claimed the goods belonging to them. Accordingly, that part of the order of the Additional Collector is modified by holding that the above-said zinc ingots and lead ingots are to be released in favour of the Appellants without insisting on the production of a no objection certificate from the transport companies. 11. The next point for determination is whether the confiscation of 730 pcs. of zinc ingots corresponding to File No. SI (VI)29/89P, 53 pcs. of zinc ingots corresponding to F. No. SI (VI)33/89P, 490 pcs. of zinc ingots corresponding to F. No. SI (VI)35/89P, 242 pcs. of zinc ingots corresponding to F. No. SI (VI)37/89P are in accordance with law. It is now seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only through canalising agencies. All these facts were discussed by the learned adjudicating Officer and he had come to a conclusion based on facts and circumstances prevailing in this case. In that view of the matter, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Adjudicating Officer that these goods are liable for confiscation. 12. In a decision reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 207 : C.D. George v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows :- ......"Thus if the finding reached by the trial judge cannot be said to be unreasonable, the appellate court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of material on record." In so coming to the above conclusion, their Lordships relied on the previous decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1976 (3) SCC 235 (Bhagwati and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh). In view of the above-said decision it is clear that when the adjudicating authority had already based his conclusion on relevant materials, no case is made out for interfering with the same. Hence, we hold that the confiscation of the above-said zinc ingots is legal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Customs who passed the order for absolute confiscation had the discretion to give the option for redemption, it was but just, fair and proper that he addressed himself to this question. The order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs as confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal therefore requires to be modified only to this limited extent. 4. We, therefore, direct that the matter be remitted to the Collector of Customs for this limited purpose to this limited extent as to whether or not to give an option to the importers (appellants) to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of such fine as may be considered appropriate by him in lieu of confiscation. It will be open to the concerned officer to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law as is considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case after hearing the appellants. We have no doubt that the concerned officer will take into consideration all the relevant circumstances including the submission urged on behalf of counsel for the appellants that the goods in question, zip-fasteners, can at present be imported freely for whatever it is worth." In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
