2006 (8) TMI 377 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Redemption of confiscated gold through miscellaneous applications for rectification.
2. Interpretation of the term "prohibition" in the context of import laws.
3. Review of a previous bench order through miscellaneous applications for rectification.

Analysis:

1. Redemption of Confiscated Gold:
The appellants are not contesting the confiscation of gold but are seeking the option to redeem it through miscellaneous applications for rectification. The learned Consultant for the appellants argues that the Tribunal's previous order allowed redemption of gold as it was considered non-prohibited items. However, the Department contends that the impugned gold should be treated as prohibited based on a Supreme Court decision. The Department's stance is that the import of gold is now allowed with conditions and restrictions, making the impugned gold fall under prohibited goods. Consequently, the order of absolute confiscation by the lower appellate authority is deemed legal and proper. The Tribunal rejects the appellants' request for redemption through rectification applications.

2. Interpretation of "Prohibition" in Import Laws:
The Department relies on a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Omer v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta to support its argument that the impugned gold should be considered prohibited. The Supreme Court's decision clarifies that the term "prohibition" in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act encompasses all types of prohibitions, including restrictions on imports. The Court emphasizes that any goods imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by law are subject to confiscation. The Court's interpretation is that restrictions on imports are a form of prohibition, and the term "any prohibition" includes all types of prohibitions, whether complete or partial. Therefore, the Department's position is that the impugned gold should be treated as prohibited goods based on this legal interpretation.

3. Review of Previous Bench Order:
The appellants also seek a review of a previous order by the Bench through the miscellaneous applications for rectification. However, the Tribunal rules that seeking a review of a previous order through rectification applications is not permissible. Therefore, the Tribunal rejects the appellants' request for a review of the previous order dated 5-7-2005 through the miscellaneous applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upholds the decision that the impugned gold is to be considered prohibited goods, denies the appellants' request for redemption through rectification applications, and rejects the review of the previous Bench order through miscellaneous applications.