TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made an endorsement giving up the 3rd respondent. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the 3rd respondent - M/s. Sandip Exports Limited was holder of advance licence and imported 3061.82 Kgs of Mulberry Raw Silk from China under Bill of Entry No. 39260, dated 8-9-2003 mentioning the value of the goods as 37507 US$. The said importer availed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 48/99, dated 29-4-1999 claiming the benefit of duty exemption. The bill of entry was assessed to a value of Indian ₹ 18,49,278/-. The said importer did not clear the goods for a long period of time and the consignment was seized by the Officers of the SIIB on 1-10-2004 and was liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. Duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 111(m)) and 111(o) of the Customs Act with an option to Sandip Exports Limited to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 30,00,000/-. Penalty of ₹ 8,00,000/- was imposed on Sandip Exports Limited under Section 112(a) of the Act. So far as the claim made by the appellant for change of title was repudiated in respect of the said goods. Aggrieved by that portion of the Order passed by the Commissioner repudiating the claim of the appellant, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. However, in the said appeal, the original importer viz., Sandip Exports Limited was not made a party. The Tribunal by Order dated 21-9-2006 held that the appellants were entitled to claim ownership of the goods. The redemption fine imposed wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the plea raised by the appellant claiming for release of goods it was pointed that if that was permitted, the recovery of penalty of ₹ 8,00,000/- could not be made by the Department and they have to look upon the original importer of the same. Therefore, this Court was of the view that Sandip Exports Limited should be made a party before the Tribunal and without impleading them as a party to the proceedings, the plea raised by the appellant cannot be considered. Further, it was pointed out that when the question as to ownership of the goods imported is substantial in issue as such, the decision on that issue will have far reaching consequence for determination of release of goods, the levy of duty, the levy of redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represented through counsel and contended that they do not have money to retrieve the documents from the Bank in respect of the goods in question and they are not claiming, the goods. We are at a loss to understand as to how Sandip Exports Limited could have taken such stand, more so, when the goods have already been confiscated and seized by the Department. The Tribunal, after consideration of the facts, by Order dated 10-12-2010 dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal, which has been admitted on the questions of law referred above. 3. We have heard Mr. Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. On a bare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons assigned by the Tribunal while confirming the Order passed by the adjudicating authority. As regards the claim of the appellant herein, in our view, the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A. No. 1028 of 2007, dated 11-11-2009 clearly stares at the appellant. 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. Learned counsel for appellant pointed out that the Tribunal in Paragraph No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
