TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clearly negated by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong, with the observation that such certificate/document only establishes that M/s Lapang Eco Products was engaged in supari/betel nuts business and this was not a conclusive proof of rightful ownership of the betel nuts under question. We are unable to grant such relief to the writ petitioner as prayed for. However, the writ petitioner is always at liberty to approach a competent civil forum in order to establish his claim of rightful ownership in respect of the seized betel nuts, which were later publicly auctioned - Petition disposed off. - WP (C) No. 162 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2020 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder , Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew , Judge For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Dasgupta, Adv For the Respondent : Dr. N. Mozika, Sr. Adv. With Ms. K. Warjri, Adv JUDGMENT ( Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice ) ( Oral ) 1. The instant writ petition is based on the claim of the writ petitioner, namely, Shri Rajesh Lapang, that he was the owner of certain goods (betel nuts), which were seized by the Customs authorities a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen substantial questions of law will arise for determination. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Tribunal had not returned the finding regarding genuineness of the claim of the so called owner is in the realm of evidence so cannot be looked into in this appeal because it does not constitute substantial question of law . 4. From the records it appears that the writ petitioner once again approached the learned Tribunal praying for a suitable order directing the respondent authorities to refund the sale proceeds of the seized betel nuts to him. The learned Tribunal, in terms of its order dated 18th October, 2019, was pleased to observe, inter alia, that the adjudicating authority had confiscated the seized goods absolutely and imposed penalty on the applicant. However, the adjudicating authority had not passed an order on the ownership of the seized goods as the seized goods were absolutely confiscated. The Tribunal on perusal of its earlier order dated 1st December, 2017, came to the conclusion that it had not made any observation on the ownership of the goods and that the sale proceeds of the seized betel nuts must be returned by the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es No. 004, 005 and 006 all dated 13.011.2015 [sic] were examined. It was noticed that as per the details in the invoices, the supari in two trucks with Regn. Nos. WB-51A-4936 WB-41F-2694 were consigned to Rafique Traders, Purnea, Bihar through transporters M/s P.L. Logistics. The Superintendent of Taxes, Ri-Bhoi, Nongpoh, Meghalaya was requested to verify these invoices. Vide letter ST/RBD/MVAT/R-170/2020/4277 dated 20.03.2020, the Superintendent of Taxes informed that the transactions covered by the said three invoices were not reflected in the books of accounts and no records were found to prove any sale to Rafique Traders, Purnea, Bihar. In this regard, Shri Rajesh Lapang in his further letter dated 17.03.20290 [sic] stated that theses said three tax invoices issued by him were not subjected to VAT Return as sale of the goods were not materialized during the seizure and the his Godown is beyond the Byrnihat Check Gate towards Guwahati and therefore goods purchased beyond the said check gate would not fine in movement record of Byrnihat Check Gate. In this regard, the fact that the goods were without any documents at the time of interception of the trucks cannot be overl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not tenable that Shri Rajesh Lapang could not remember the name of his manager properly. The claim of Shri Sanjit Dutta that on one hand he is an employee of Shri Rajesh Lapang and on another hand he a business associate of Om Prakash Gupta is also contradictory in itself. iii) Shri Rajesh Lapang had claimed that he had rented part of the shed/godown of M/s Meghalaya Ispat Ltd. for storing supari. This was found to be false as M/s Meghalaya Ispat Ltd. denied renting the shed/godown to Shri Rajesh Lapang or his firm. The said sub-lease godown agreement was made with one Mr. Om Prakash Gupta of Siliguri, West Bengal and the lease valid till 31.10.2016. Shri Rajesh Lapang on his part produced a sub lease agreement made with one Anup Deb of Silchar which was not examined in respect to the ownership of the premises which the truck drivers had identified. However, this cannot be a conclusive proof of rightly claim of ownership by Shri Rajesh Lapang in the face of undisputed facts of the case contradicting his ownership claim of the goods which were loaded in the seized truck with Regn. Nos. WB- 51A-4936 and WB-41F-2694. iv) The seizure was made on 15.01.2016. Shri Rajesh Lapa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lse claims and trying to mislead the investigation with the intention to gain unlawfully for him. The Adjudicating Authority examined the claims of Shri Rajesh Lapang and found his claim to be false. Accordingly, as proposed in the SCN the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty on Shri Rajesh Lapang under Section 114AA. 9. The orders of the CESTAT and Hon'ble High Court were on the legality of confiscation of the betel nuts under Section 111 (b) (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The CESTAT and Hon'ble High Court had not interfered with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority with regard to the ownership claim of the betel nuts made by Shri Rajesh Lapang. In view of the facts and discussion in preceding paragraphs, I do not find anything substantial or any new facts to disagree with the findings of the original Adjudicating Authority with regard to the ownership claim of the betel nuts by Shri Rajesh Lapang. 9.1 With regard to consequential relief, if any, arising out of the Final Order dated 01.12.2017 of CESTAT, the CESTAT had left it to Shri Rajesh Lapang to approach the Commissioner [of Customs] for consequential relief, if any, arising out of the Final Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner had absolute right, title and interest over the betel nuts. At every stage of the proceedings before the adjudicating authority as well as before the learned Tribunal, the writ petitioner could not establish his claim of ownership over the seized goods (betel nuts) with irrefutable evidence. Rather, it is evident from the order dated 29th May, 2020, rendered by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong, that the writ petitioner attempted to produce a certificate dated 10th December, 2015, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes of Meghalaya, Ri Bhoi district, in order to claim his rightful ownership of the betel nuts under question. This claim of the writ petitioner was clearly negated by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong, with the observation that such certificate/document only establishes that M/s Lapang Eco Products was engaged in supari/betel nuts business and this was not a conclusive proof of rightful ownership of the betel nuts under question. 8. In such circumstances, as stated above, we are unable to grant such relief to the writ petitioner as prayed for. However, the writ petitioner is always at li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
