TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear from the fact that Section 111 of the Customs Act providing for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties, in its numerous clauses preponderantly employ the words 'dutiable or prohibited' and only clause (o) of Section 111 deals with the goods exempted from Customs duty ? 5. Whether the Courts below have acted without jurisdiction ?" 2.Factual background in which the application has been filed is as follows : Applicant was issued a show cause notice by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi (in short the 'Commissioner'). As per the said notice applicant and other noticees were called upon to explain as to why 4908 pieces of 'Computer Software CD ROMs Lotus Smart Suite-97", seized from the godown and office premises of M/s. Somerset International Limited on 16th April, 1998, should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Act. In the reply submitted, applicant raised the contention that he was not connected with the import of the disputed CD ROMs and that he was not liable for any penalty. By order-in-original, dated 8th September, 1999, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the applicant under Section 112(a) of the Act. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such goods; (b) any goods imported by land or inland water through any route other than a route specified in a notification issued under clause (c) of Section 7 for the import of such goods; (c) any dutiable or prohibited goods brought into any bay, gulf, creek or tidal river for the purpose of being landed at a place other than a customs port; (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or any other law for the time being in force; (e) any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any conveyance; (f) any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned; unloaded from a conveyance in contravention of the provision of Section 32, other than goods inadvertently unloaded but included in the record kept under sub-section (2) of Section 45; (h) any dutiable or prohibited goods unloaded or attempted to be un- loaded in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 or Section 34; ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other particular, with the entry made under the Act the plea that Section 111 has application only to dutiable goods has no substance. 6.When the material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, the most firmly established rule for construction of such words "of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law)", is the rule laid down in Heydon's case (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a, which has now attained the status of a classic. The rule which is also known as "`purposive' construction" or "mischief rule" enables consideration of four matters : (1) "What was the law before making of the Act, (2) What was the mischief for which the law did not provide, (3) What is the remedy that the Act has provided and (4) What is the reason of the remedy". The rule then directs that the Courts must adopt the construction "which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy". The rule was explained by the Apex Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 S.C. 661. It is to be noted that rule in Heydon's case (supra) is applicable only when the words in question are ambiguous and are reasonably capable of more than one meanin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in(b) carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111, shall be liable - (i) ....... (ii) to (v) ........." We have earlier indicated that the imported goods were12. liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and this was obvious to appellants at least when they requested for acquiring possession thereof accepting the laboratory test reports indicating that there was mis-declaration of the goods and agreeing to adjudication on that basis. The declaration that the imported goods were 'OFF' grade Gum Rosin while in fact they were 'WG' grade Gum Rosin was made by the appellants and it was the appellants who had acquired possession and appropriated the goods agreeing to the adjudication being made under the Act on mis-declaration being found. These undisputed facts clearly bring the appellants within the ambit of Section 112 wherein clause (b) is wide enough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
