Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (2) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 12-7-1982. The Collector in his order under appeal had accepted this fact and held that the goods namely, 79 takas seized from the appellants were out of the stock imported under the aforesaid B/E. However, the Collector confiscated the seized goods for contravention of Chapter IV-A and he levied the penalties for the same contravention. Shri Menon submitted that the penalties had been levied on Shri Ganatra and his pro-prietary concern. This was not legal. He drew our attention in this behalf to the provisions of Section 140 of the Customs Act and explained that a proprietary concern would not come under the definition of a Company under Section 140. In reply to a question from the Bench as to whether the separate penalties should not be treated as a combined penalty of the total amount, Shri Menon submitted that this would not be correct and the question of this consideration was not before the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal could not hold the aforesaid view. Besides under law, it was not legal for the Addl. Collector to impose two penalties on the same person for the same offence. Shri Menon however admitted that the show cause notice was issued to Shri Ganatra and to his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion to redeem the same on payment of a fine. He stated that the other facts regarding non-compliance with provisions of Chapter IV-A were not denied though, they were not relevant for the purpose of the request for giving the option for redemption of the confiscated goods. 2.The learned SDR Shri Senthivel drew our attention to the Collector's findings in his order. Shri Senthivel observed that the Collector had held that the appellants had discharged the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act though the description of the fabrics as given in the B/E was not quite explicit with reference to the description of the takas seized from the appellants. However, the Collector extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Shri Senthivel however argued that the appellant had sold the goods to bogus customers. The sales were bona fide. As regards the non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter IV-A, the offence was accepted by the appellants. Shri Senthivel however did not advance any arguments as to why the Collector did not give an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine. He merely contended that the confiscation under Section 111(p) was not disputed as the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f goods which have been properly imported earlier. Besides, sub-section (p) there are sub-sections like (n), (o) etc. There is therefore no escape to the appellants from the admission that goods imported properly earlier can be confiscated under Section 111(p). Once this position is established, it is seen that under Section 112, a person is rendered liable to penalty under sub-sections (a) and (b) for the reasons mentioned therein. Applying the provisions of law to the facts of the case, it is seen that after import, the appellants did not comply with the requirements of Chapter IV-A and therefore this omission to comply with the requirements rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(p) and the appellants to a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. It may further be seen that while Section 112(a) is attracted in the present case as seen above the objection raised by the appellants' learned Advocate is not fully answered so far. The liability to the penalty is to be determined in terms of the 5 clauses of Section 112. Examining these clauses it is seen that Clause (i) is fully attracted to the facts of the case, and this for the reasons which follow. This s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . This position emerges daily before the Customs authorities when they consider the imports which are made without a valid licence. Hence Section 112(a) is very much attracted to the circumstances of the present appeal. In this view, Section 117 is precluded from consideration as this Section provides for a penalty for contravention of any provisions of the Act only where no express penalty is elsewhere provided for such contravention or failure to comply with any provisions of the Customs Act. It is therefore not possible to accept the Advocate's argument that Section 112 does not come into operation but only Section 117 of the Customs Act. The next question which the learned Advocate agitated was to request for release of the confiscated goods on payment of a redemption fine. He has urged that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the goods were not prohibited and hence the Addl. Collector was under statutory obligation to permit release of the goods on payment of a fine. For the purposes of penalty leviable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, it is seen from the foregoing facts that the imported goods come within the general definition of "prohibited goods". Section 125 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parately, the same are not in order and accordingly the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) levied on M/s. Export Enterprises under Section 112 is set aside. Except for the aforesaid modifications in the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, the same is confirmed and the appeal of Shri H.D. Ganatra and M/s. Export Enterprises is otherwise rejected. 7. [Order per: K. Gopal Hegd, Member (J)]. - I have carefully gone through the order proposed to be delivered by Brother Dilipsinhji. I respectfully disagree with his conclusions and his interpretation of Sections 112 and 125 of the Customs Act. I however agree with his conclusion that separate penalties was not leviable on the proprietary firm when penalty had been levied on the proprietor. 8.As Brother Shri Dilipsinhji has set out the facts as well as the contentions urged by the two sides, it is not necessary to repeat the facts as well as the contention urged in detail. Suffice if I refer to a few undisputed facts and to the order passed by the Collector. 9.Shri Hasmukh Dalpatrai Ganatra, was, at the relevant time proprietor of the firm M/s. Export Enterprises, Bombay. The firm imported synthetic fabrics .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 'his proprietary firm M/s. Export Enterprises under Section 112 of the C.A. 12.In this appeal Shri Menon appearing for the appellant contended that the order of the Addl. Collector was illegal inasmuch as that he has no jurisdiction to order absolute confiscation, he cannot impose the penalty greater than Rs. 1,000/- for violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A and that separate penalties cannot be imposed on the proprietor and the firm. 13.Shri Senthivel the learned Departmental Representative has however justified the order passed by the Addl. Collector. His contentions are set out by brother Dilipsinhji in his order and it is not necessary to repeat them. 14.Having regard to the contentions of Shri Menon, the three questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are : (1)        Whether the Addl. Collector has no jurisdiction to impose a personal penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on Shri H.D. Ganatra under Section 112 of the C.A. and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. Export Enterprises under Section 112. (2)        Whether the Addl. Collector has no jurisdiction to order absolute confiscation of the seized goods. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the declared value and the value thereof or one thousand rupees, whichever is the highest. 117. Penalties for contravention, etc. not expressly mentioned :- Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or abets any such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of this Act with which it was his duty to comply, where no express penalty is elsewhere provided for such contravention or failure, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand rupees. 125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation :- (1)        Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods give to the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit. 15.It is seen that Section 112 consist of two parts. The first part deals with as to when a person becomes liable for imposition of penalty and part two deals with the amount of penalty that could be levied on a person. Unless b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned under the regulations in an import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned; As a matter of fact the contentions of the appellant that the seized goods formed part of the goods cleared against their REP Licences Nos- 2948340/2940183/ 0459677/ 0467866 was accepted by the Addl. Collector. 19.Brother Dilipsinhji after referring to the definition of the expression "prohibited" goods" defined under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act and after referring to Clause 3 of the Imports (Control) Order and Section 11 of the Customs Act had held that the seized goods are prohibited goods. As stated earlier, I am in total disagreement with this finding of his 20.Clause 3 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 reads : 3(1). Restriction of Import of certain goods:- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Order, no person shall import any goods of the description specified in Schedule I, except under and in accordance with a licence or a Customs permit granted by the Central Government or by any officer specified in Schedule II. The rest of the clause is not relevant for our purpose. This clause prohibits import of goods specified in Schedule I of the Order except under and in accord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that the order passed by the Addl. Collector is illegal. He urged that according to the finding of the Addl. Collector, the seized goods formed part of the licitly imported goods. Therefore, they ceased to be prohibited goods and as such, the Addl. Collector was required to give an option to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation. In support of his contention, Shri Menon relied on the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Act. I have already extracted the provision of Section 125. The contention of Shri Menon is well founded. The absolute confiscation of the goods by an Adjudicating Officer is permissible in respect of the goods the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under the Customs Act or under any other law for the time being in force. In all other cases even if the goods are liable to confiscation, the adjudicating authority is required to give an option to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. As has been rightly contended by Shri Menon, the finding of the Addl. Collector was that the seized goods formed part of the licitly imported goods. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are prohibited goods. I have already referred t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(p) thereby attracting Clause (a) of Section 112, the penalty contemplated under that Section cannot be levied because the goods seized formed part of the licitly imported goods and there was no violation or any restriction imposed in regard to its import. Similarly, there was no evasion of duty in respect of the said goods. Further, there was no declaration as to the value. Thus none of the Clauses 1 to 5 enumerated in Section 112 is attracted. The only other section which provides for penalty in contravention of the provisions of the Act is Section 117. But the penalty imposable under that Section cannot exceed one thousand rupees. I, therefore impose a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant Shri H.D. Ganatra. 25.With the result this appeal is allowed. The imposition of penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on Shri H.G. Ganatra and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. Export Enterprises under Section 112 are set aside and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- is imposed on the appellant Shri H.D. Ganatra under Section 117. 26.The order of absolute confiscation of the seized goods is set aside. The appellant is however .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he points on which they were not in agreement. Thereupon papers were submitted by them to the President under Section 129-C(5) of the Customs Act. The President of the Tribunal under order dated 14-8-1986 constituted the present bench for hearing submissions on the points of difference arising under the orders of the Members of the West Regional Bench. The President had indicated that since the points of difference had been differently formulated by the two learned Members of the West Regional Bench, the Members of this Bench, will formulate the points of difference on which submissions are to be heard. 29.Accordingly, members of this Bench formulated the points of difference as follows : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 79 takas in question were prohibited goods (for purposes of confiscation without option for redemption) as held by Shri Dilip Sinhji, Member (T) or whether they were not prohibited goods as held by Shri Hegde, Member (J)? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act on Shri H.D. Ganatra was justified or not? (iii) Whether, on the facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the export of the goods should have been made without compliance of the conditions under which the goods could be imported or exported. It has already been found by the Customs authorities that the import of the goods into India was not in contravention of any conditions. The petitioner has been found guilty only of non-compliance of the requirement prescribed under Chapter IV-A of the Act. In this view of the matter in our opinion the goods in question cannot be said to be prohibited goods and consequently the said clause of the second part of Section 112 could not be attracted." He contends that, similarly, in the present instance also, the goods having been validly imported in terms of REP licences produced therefor, the subsequent failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act could not make the importer Shri Ganatra liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and penalty could be levied only under Section 117 of the Customs Act. 34.On the other hand Shri Sachar relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheikh Mohd. Omer v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (AIR 1971, Supreme Court 293) to contend that the word "prohibition" would .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s at the time of their arrival. Section 2(33) of the Customs Act defines prohibited goods as "any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported have been complied with". As we have seen earlier, the import of the goods in question were not subject to any prohibition under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force except insofar as valid licences were required for their import. Nor was it subject to any condition subject to which the goods were permitted to be imported. In the circumstances the goods would not be prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. The mere circumstance that a licence would be required to be obtained under Clause 3 of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 would not render the goods as prohibited goods as defined in Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. On the issue of the licence the goods could be validly imported and, as we have seen, no condition has been imposed subject to which the import was to take .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Act, was liable to be penalised under Section 112 of the Customs Act 39. In view of the finding that the goods (in the present case and having regard to the fact that they were covered by valid import licences) were not prohibited goods as defined in Section 2(33) of the Act and, therefore, the importation thereof was not prohibited under the Customs Act or under any other law for the time being in force, we hold that under Section 125 of the Customs Act an option for redemption was mandatory. 40.In the light of the above discussion our findings on the three points of difference between the two members of the West Regional Bench, is enumerated earlier, are as follows : 1. We hold that the 79 takas in question were not prohibited goods as defined in Section 2(33) of the Customs Act which could be confiscated without an option for redemption but that though they are liable for confiscation an option for redemption is mandatory. We note that so far as the quantum of redemption fine is concerned there has been no difference between the two members. 2. We hold that the levy of penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act on Shri H.D. Ganatra, was justified. 3. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates