9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e), Shillong, and sold in public auction. The sale proceeds amounts to Rs. 66,51,40/-. This amount is lying deposited with the State Bank of India, Guwahati. 2. An Order-in-Original was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) dated 3rd January, 2017, which was subsequently set aside by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in terms of its order dated 1st December, 2017. The records reveal that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 131 of 2018. In that writ petition also, the writ petitioner had applied for refund of sale proceeds of the confiscated goods which were later sold in public auction. The earlier Division Bench of this Court, while rendering its order dated 16th November, 2018, was pleased to observe, inter alia, as follows:- "3. Petitioner in effect seeks implementation of the order of CESTAT for which he has efficacious remedy by laying motion before the CESTAT. Writ petition, as such, is not worth to be entertained is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek implementation of the order of CESTAT by laying proper motion before the CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner approached the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong, who passed an order on 29th May, 2020. From a plain reading of the order dated 29th May, 2020, it appears that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong, carefully considered the claim of the applicant (being the writ petitioner herein) with regard to ownership of the seized goods (betel nuts). Observations made in paragraphs 8.6 and 8.7 of the order dated 29th May, 2020, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong, are relevant in this context and thus reproduced hereinbelow: "8.6 Rajesh Lapang had submitted copy of certificate No. ST/RBD/MVAT/R-3064 dated 10-12-2015 having validity up to 31-12-2015 issued by the Supt of Taxes, Govt. of Meghalaya, Ri Bhoi District along with his claim petition dated 18.10.2019. He had also submitted copies of three invoices at the time of investigations, which according to him were not considered at the time of adjudication. The certificates of the Meghalaya Government Taxation Department were examined and it was seen that these are certificates to the effect that M/s Lapang Eco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore reproduced hereinbelow: "8.8 There are facts and statements which contradict the ownership claim of the seized betel nuts by Rajesh Lapang. i) No invoices or any other documents in respect of the betel nuts were accompanying the goods. The drivers of the trucks could not produce any invoices or any other documents at the time of interception of the trucks and the seizure of the betel nuts. The drivers stated in their statements stated that the goods were bound for Falakata, West Bengal. The drivers also stated the trucks were arranged by Barun Chakraborty of M/s Barun Transport. Shri Barun Chakraborty stated in his statement that he had arranged the trucks for transportation of betel nuts to West Bengal on the instruction of one Gupta. The owners of the trucks stated that trucks were hired to take consignments to Alipurduar, West Bengal. Whereas, the purported three invoices of the betel nuts submitted by Shri Rajesh Lapang, in support of his claim, shows that the goods were for delivery to Rafique Traders, Purnea, Bihar through M/s P.L. Logistics. Hence, it is seen that the facts of the case do not match with the (belated) claim of Shri Rajesh Lapang. ii) In his s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truck owners or the truck drivers or the transport broker or all of them have informed Shri Rajesh Lapang or his Manager of the seizure of the goods by the Customs. In fact, none of these persons mentioned the name of Shri Rajesh Lapang or his firm M/s Lapang Eco Products as the owner of the goods or even tangentially in any manner connected with the seizure. Was it tenable that a businessman whose goods worth over Rs. 60 lakh were seized would be unaware of the seizure and that too for over eighty-one or more days? Was it tenable that his Manager or employee would not be aware of the seizure by the Customs and not informed his employer? I find the reason cited by him of being not well and hence being not aware of the seizure to be unplausible. For argument's sake if it is accepted that he was unwell during those eighty-one days or more, but not agreeing to it, was it possible that the owner of goods worth over Rs. 60 Lakh would not be informed of the seizure of his goods by his Manager/employee. Or even if he was not informed of the seizure, for argument's sake but not agreeing to it, would he not be worried that he had not received any news about his goods for more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tunity to substantiate his claim before the present Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), N.E.R., Shillong. The Commissioner has, accordingly, examined the whole facts of the case, the documents submitted by Shri Rajesh Lapang and the submissions made by him. 9.3 In view of facts of the case and discussion in preceding paragraphs, I do not find merit in the present petition of Shri Rajesh Lapang to release the sale proceeds to him as he has failed to prove that the betel nuts under question belonged to him. Hence, the only consequential relief to Shri Rajesh Lapang arising out of the Final Order dated 01.12.2017 is the penalty of Rs. 5, 00, 000 imposed on him under Section 144AA of the Customs Act, 1962 vide the Order-in-Original dated 03.01.2017. 9.4 The claim of Shri Rajesh Lapang is therefore found to be false. No other person has claimed ownership of the betel nuts under question. Therefore, the sale proceeds of the betel nuts is cannot be released to Shri Rajesh Lapang or any other person. 9.5 In view of above, I pass the following order. ORDER 10. I reject the Petition dated 18.10.2019 of Shri Rajesh Lapang requesting to release the sale proceeds of Rs. 66,51,140." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
