TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation under sections 111 and 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') had initiated a proceeding against the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to appellant by issuing a show cause notice dated 3.12.2001 had also passed a final order on 15.7.2003 under section 122 of the Customs Act directing confiscation of the aforesaid seized goods in terms of Section 111 (b) of the Customs Act. The said order of the Joint Commissioner, Customs, Patna, was assailed by the appellant-writ petitioner in Appeal no. 225/CUS/Appeal/2004 which also was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 21.9.2004. The appellant-writ petitioner thereafter had also moved the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Eastern Regional Bench, and the Tribunal also by its order dated 2.6.2005 had dismissed the case of the appellant-writ petitioner for default and/or non-prosecution. 2. It appears that after the disposal of the case of appellant-writ petitioner by the Tribunal that the confiscated goods were auction sold and delivered to the successful auction purchaser on 4.8.2005. The appellant-writ petitioner however had filed an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner-appellant did not dispute the fact but his plea was that he was required to be given another notice after disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal before the confiscated goods seized by the customs authority could have been auction sold. 5. The learned single Judge having considered the rival contention of both the parties had dismissed the writ application by the impugned order under appeal wherein it has been held that the seized goods had vested in the Central Government under section 125 of the Customs Act and the appellant-writ petitioner having failed to exercise his option to retain the seized goods within the prescribed period of one month had no right to claim return of the goods even on payment of the amount of fine and penalty. The writ court in this regard had also recorded a finding that the appellant-writ petitioner could not have taken a plea that the auction held after expiry of the period suffered from any jurisdictional error or even in violation of the rule of natural justice or in violation of the provision of Customs Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action of auction sale had submitted that irrespective of the pendency of the statutory application before the Tribunal, the Customs authority could not have waited endlessly for exercise of option by the appellant-writ petitioner for redeeming the confiscated goods because in terms of the order passed under section 125 of the Act, the authority while confiscating the goods had given a fixed time limit of one month from the date of the issue of the order and since appellant-writ petitioner did not even choose to intimate the authority that he did not intend to redeem the confiscated goods. the resultant action of putting the confiscated goods on auction sale and that too after the dismissal of the application by the Tribunal cannot be faulted under the scheme of the Act. 8. Having appreciated the aforementioned submissions of both the parties we are of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, From the scheme which has been set out in the Customs Act it is absolutely clear that once the competent authority takes a decision for confiscation of goods, they in terms of section 125 of the Act stand vested in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 75,000/- in lieu of confiscation. This option is to be exercised within one month of issue of the order. However, the release of goods to be done on payment of penalty amounts to the notice. 11. I order for confiscation of the seized truck under section 115(2) of Customs Act, 1962. However, since the truck has been released provisionally on bond, on deposition of cash security of ₹ 25,000/-. I offer an option under section 125 of Customs Act' 1962 to redeem the seized truck on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 25,000/-. 12. I impose penalty, shown against the names mentioned below, under section 112 of Customs Act' 1962. Notice No. Names Identity Amount of Penalty 1 Sri Praveen Kumar Driver 10,000/- 2 Sri Narendra Kumar Khalasi 5,000/- 3 Sri Rajiv Kr. Thakur Agent of the owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order after expiry of more than three years. It is apparent from the scheme of the Act that when such an order of confiscation is made, the goods automatically vest in the Central Government. The Act and the Rules made thereunder also clearly provide that adjudication officer is entitled to take and hold possession of the confiscated goods on behalf of the Central Government. In such view of the matter, the auction sale of the seized confiscated goods cannot be said to be illegal specially when the authorities had auctioned those goods only after dismissal of the application of the appellant-writ petitioner by Tribunal on 2.6.2005. The appellant-writ petitioner in fact after auction sale of the seized confiscated goods and its delivery of possession in favour of successful auction purchaser on 4.8.2005 could not have been restored the possession of the seized confiscated goods as prayed in the writ petition filed after more than one year i.e. on 9.10.2006. The writ application in fact was fit to be dismissed on the ground alone. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge and accordingly this appeal must be dismissed. 14. Befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
