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

2004 (4) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vered by 10 import licences issued during the period March, 1981 to January, 1982. But none of the licences was filed with the Bills of Entry, Pending production of the licences; the CHA was required to clarify as to the nature of defects of the goods and whether the circles were magnetic or not. They were also asked to furnish the chemical composition of the goods. As the CHA failed to furnish the required particulars, representative cases of the five consignments were inspected and test-weighed by Customs officers along with the department's Metallurgical expert in the presence of the CHA. On inspection, the goods were found to be non-magnetic stainless steel circles with no visible defects. The Metallurgical expert opined that the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited (the appellants herein) appeared through the Bank Manager and the Bank's Consultant and made a request for being heard. This request was acceded to by the Commissioner. After examining the records and considering the submissions made on behalf of the Bank, the Commissioner passed the order which is impugned in the present appeal. The impugned order confirmed a demand of customs duty of Rs. 1,38,72,807/- on the imported goods and also imposed redemption fine of equal amount in lieu of confiscation of the goods. The order also imposed penalties of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 25,000/- on A. Kumar and IS Corporation respectively under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel has submitted a chro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... civil suit, which had since been disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Bank had never had a claim under Section 124 of the Customs Act, nor was it liable to be notified of the department's proposal to confiscate the goods. Though the goods were auctioned off as early as in 1983 as per an interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in proceedings, to which the Bank was also a party, the Bank did not claim anything under Section 124 of the Customs Act at any stage during the pendency of the said proceedings or thereafter. Though representatives of the Bank were allowed to be heard as intervenors in the Commissioner's adjudication proceedings, the Bank did not plead that the goods were not liable to be confiscated without noti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in State Bank of India, Chennai. The Joint Receivers auctioned the goods and deposited the sale proceeds with the State Bank of India. Thereafter in 1984, IS Corporation filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's orders of dismissal of their Writ Petitions. In the next year, LV Bank filed a Civil Suit with Madras High Court against IS Corporation and others for recovering an amount of Rs. 46,48,471/-. In October, 1996, the Supreme Court disposed of the cases before it and ordered that, out of the total amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (sale proceeds plus interest) accrued in State Bank of India, an amount of Rs. 1,23,86,591/- be paid towards Income tax, Rs. 32,72,626/- be paid to Port Trust, and the balan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bank for ownership of the goods in question. As the Bank was neither importer nor owner of the goods, it cannot be considered to be a "person aggrieved" by the Commissioner's order of confiscation of the goods. Therefore, LV Bank had no locus standi to file this appeal. We have also noted that the Bank, in this appeal, has not challenged the quantum of redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has not specifically asked anybody to deposit the redemption fine. Had he asked the Bank to pay the fine, of course, the latter would have become an "aggrieved person''. The Bank has not been burdened with any duty or other liability under the impugned order. 7. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. .....

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