2006 (5) TMI 348 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interim injunction against the Commissioner of Customs for selling confiscated goods.
2. Confiscation of sandalwood chips from a partnership firm.
3. Imposition of penalty and confiscation order by the Commissioner.
4. Lack of notice to one of the partners in the confiscation proceedings.
5. Appeal for fresh decision on confiscation and penalty.

Issue 1: Interim Injunction
The appellant sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale of 10 M.Ts. of sandalwood chips confiscated from a trading corporation where the appellant was a partner. The tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal summarily due to the unique circumstances presented.

Issue 2: Confiscation of Goods
Sandalwood chips were seized from the partnership firm, M/s. J.J. Trading Corporation, where the appellant and another individual were partners. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, primarily targeting the deceased partner, despite the appellant's involvement in the firm. The appellant claimed unawareness of the confiscation order until 2006.

Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty
The Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of goods and imposed a penalty on the trading corporation, represented by the deceased partner. The appellant, not receiving any notice, was excluded from the proceedings. The tribunal noted the lack of due process in this regard.

Issue 4: Lack of Notice
The records indicated that no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, despite the goods being seized from the partnership premises. The tribunal highlighted the necessity of issuing notices to all partners involved in such cases, as per the Customs Act.

Issue 5: Appeal for Fresh Decision
The tribunal concluded that the case required reconsideration by the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the confiscation and penalty aspects. It emphasized the need for the appellant to be given an opportunity to present his case and for the proceedings to adhere to legal principles and natural justice. The tribunal allowed the appeal for remand to ensure a fair adjudication process.