2003 (3) TMI 471 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 29-4-2002 for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 29-4-2002, which ordered the confiscation of goods (ball bearings) and imposed penalties. The facts were not disputed, where the truck carrying the goods was intercepted, and the goods were seized as the driver could not produce legal acquisition documents. The appellant, a director of the company owning the goods, provided documents showing legal importation of the goods. However, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation and imposed a penalty due to discrepancies in the quantity of goods imported.

2. The appellant contended that no show cause notice was served on the owner of the goods, M/s. M.P. International Pvt. Ltd., as required by Section 124 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the documents regarding the import of goods were wrongly ignored, and the impugned order should be set aside. The appellant claimed that the seized goods were lawfully imported by his company from Dubai, and no inquiry was made from the selling company to verify this.

3. The learned Counsel argued that the impugned order was incorrect, as it did not consider the documents provided by the appellant showing legal importation of the goods. The appellant maintained that the goods were legally imported, and the discrepancies in quantity were not sufficient to prove smuggling. The adjudicating authority's decision was deemed incorrect as it did not adequately consider the evidence provided by the appellant.

4. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was legally unsustainable as the owner of the goods was not served a notice as required by Section 124 of the Customs Act. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the appellant's claim of lawful importation of goods was wrongly rejected by the adjudicating authority. The documents provided by the appellant supported the claim of legal importation, and the discrepancies in quantity were not substantial enough to prove smuggling.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision was based on the failure to serve a notice to the owner of the goods and the incorrect rejection of the appellant's claim of lawful importation. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was deemed unsustainable, providing consequential relief to the appellant as permissible under the law.