2003 (2) TMI 223 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership of goods in question.
2. Notice requirement under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
3. Claim for re-export of goods.
4. Challenge to confiscation order.

Ownership of goods in question:
The case involved a dispute regarding the ownership of goods imported by M/s. India Export House. M/s. Miralka Enterprises claimed to be the owner of the goods in question as the exporter, asserting that since the importer had not cleared the goods, they retained ownership. The appellants cited a Supreme Court decision and the adjudicating authority's observations to support their claim. However, the revenue contended that the goods were imported by M/s. India Export House and that the appellants never sought re-export until filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership must be proven with evidence of whether title was transferred to the importer and if no consideration was received. The appellants were advised to approach the competent authority for re-export, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Notice requirement under Section 124 of the Customs Act:
The appellants argued that they were not issued a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, which mandates notifying the owner before confiscation. They relied on legal precedents to support their contention. However, the revenue pointed out that the importer had already been through confiscation proceedings, and the appellants failed to challenge the initial order. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants never requested re-export despite knowing the goods were uncleared. It was suggested that the appellants could seek re-export by approaching the competent authority for a decision in accordance with the law.

Claim for re-export of goods:
M/s. Miralka Enterprises sought to set aside the confiscation of the goods and requested re-export. The appellants never pursued re-export with the customs authority, even though they claimed ownership due to the importer's inaction. The Tribunal emphasized the appellants' obligation to provide evidence of ownership and lack of consideration received for the goods. The appellants were advised to apply for re-export through the competent authority, which would evaluate their request in compliance with legal provisions.

Challenge to confiscation order:
The appeal involved a challenge to the confiscation of goods and a plea for re-export. M/s. Miralka Enterprises contended that as the exporter, they retained ownership since the importer did not clear the goods. However, the revenue argued that the importer had already faced confiscation proceedings, which were not contested by the present appellants. The Tribunal highlighted the appellants' failure to seek re-export despite knowledge of the uncleared goods. The appellants were directed to approach the competent authority for re-export consideration, with the appeal being disposed of accordingly.