9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PREV/Cus-202/2003 2. Confiscation of sewing machine parts of foreign origin 3. Failure to produce licit documents for possession/importation/purchase bills 4. Admission of selling foreign goods in an unaccounted manner 5. Imposition of penalty and absolute confiscation of goods 6. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions regarding confiscation and redemption of goods Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. PREV/Cus-202/2003, challenging the confiscation of sewing machine parts of foreign origin by Customs officers during a search at the premises of M/s. Suhrid Traders. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the absence of licit documents for possession/importation/purchase bills. 2. The Appellant, represented by Shri T. Hussain, argued that the sewing machine parts were freely importable under the Government's liberalization policy, not falling under the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act. It was contended that the Department failed to prove the smuggled/contraband nature of the goods, and the Seizing Officer lacked reasonable belief as possession of foreign sewing machine parts was not an offense. 3. The Revenue, represented by Shri A.K. Choudhary, pointed out that the seized goods had foreign markings with no supporting licit documents. The delay in submitting a claim petition raised suspicions of manipulation and fabrication of documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these observations, emphasizing the voluntary admission of selling foreign goods in an unaccounted manner by the Appellant. 4. The Tribunal noted the Appellant's admission of dealing in foreign goods in an unaccounted manner and the absence of licit documents for legal possession. Citing Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the goods were liable for seizure under the Customs Act. 5. However, considering a previous judgment by the Kolkata High Court, the Tribunal found that since the impugned goods were neither prohibited nor restricted, an option for redemption should have been provided instead of absolute confiscation. The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority to determine the redemption fine and any penalty amount, ensuring principles of natural justice were followed. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the lower authority to reconsider the case in light of the judgment regarding redemption of goods, indicating that absolute confiscation was not appropriate in this scenario.
|
