TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, the appeal preferred by GIL against the Order-in-Original dated 30th December 2014 is stated to be pending before the CCA. In terms of the Circular No. 711/4/2006 dated 14th February 2006 issued by the CBEC, the Department had to seek the permission of the CCA before proceeding with the auction. Accordingly, the Court directs status quo in respect of the auction of the confiscated goods covered by B/E No. 3 to be maintained till such time the CCA passes appropriate orders in relation thereto. Petition to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for being listed before a Larger Bench - W.P.(C) 1735/2016 AND CM No.7433/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR AND VIBHU BAKHRU JJ. Mr. Jayant Mehta and Ms. Nattasha Garg, Advocates. For the Petitioners. Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing for the Respondent. ORDER: 1. The Petitioner, Gillette India Ltd. ( GIL‟), is before this Court aggrieved by the auction process initiated by the Department of Customs ( Department‟) in respect of the goods imported by GIL under three Bills of Entry ( B/Es‟). 2. GIL imported 1008 Power Tooth Brushes under B/E No. 5980646 (hereafter B/E No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing an option to GIL to redeem the goods on paying a redemption fine of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 125 of the Act within 30 days. A penalty of ₹ 5,000/- was levied under Section 112 of the Act. 8. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned two Orders-in-original dated 31st December 2013 were not challenged by the Petitioner. 9. As far as B/E No. 3 is concerned, on 30th December 2014 the DC (Bond) passed an order confiscating the goods, giving an option to GIL to redeem them on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- within 30 days. It was further directed that after redemption of the goods, GIL would pay the custom duty amounting to ₹ 1,58,454/- assessed on the goods lying uncleared and interest thereon at the applicable rates under Section 61(2) read with Section 72(b) of the Act. A penalty of ₹ 15,000/- under Section 112 of the Act was also levied. 10. It is stated by GIL that the aforementioned order has been appealed against by GIL before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) ('CCA'). A copy of the memorandum of appeal along with an application for stay filed by the Petitioner on 4th March, 2015 has been placed on record. 11. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts out in a tabular form, in respect of each of the B/Es, the duty, redemption fine, penalty and the interest as well as the amount for which the goods have been sold. It is clarified by Mr Satish Kumar that the amount collected from the auction purchaser includes the duty, the redemption fine, penalty and interest as well as the amount for which the goods have been sold. 19. The principal contention of Mr Jayant Mehta is that although the goods confiscated may have vested with the Central Government under Section 126 of the Act, that provision has to be read with Section 125 of the Act which gives the Department the right to recover such fine as the officer in charge of adjudging may think fit in lieu of confiscation of goods. It is contended that the Department cannot appropriate the goods and if the importer has already made payment of the duty, interest, penalty and redemption fine (although belatedly but prior to the date of auction), the Department cannot insist on recovering anything more by way of auction sale. He submits that as far as B/E Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned even if an auction sale of the good imported thereunder has taken place, the amount recovered by the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auction of such goods, only such amount as was due to it, viz., the customs duty, interest, penalty and redemption fine and any excess amount recovered by the Central Government has to be paid to the importer of the goods? This would in turn require an interpretation of the expression vest in the Central Government occurring in Section 126(1) of the Act. The Court is of the view that the decision of the coordinate Bench in MMTC v. Surjit Singh (supra) cannot be construed as an authoritative pronouncement on the above issue. Yet, since the said decision is being been relied upon by GIL, the Court is of the view that the above issue and incidentally the correctness of the decision of this Court in MMTC v. Surjit Singh (supra) would have to be considered by a larger Bench. 23. It is stated that the decision of this Court in MMTC v. Surjit Singh (supra) is the subject matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court, being CA Nos. 165-166 of 2015. The Court has been shown a copy of the order dated 6th January, 2015 in SLP (C) No. 35999-36000 of 2013 by which leave was granted giving rise to the aforementioned appeals. By the said order and the interim relief granted earlier was direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
