2008 (9) TMI 768 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of silver and Indian currency under Customs Act for non-compliance with Chapter IVB provisions.
2. Applicability of Section 113 of the Customs Act for confiscation and penalty imposition.
3. Interpretation of the provisions of Chapter IVB in relation to illegal exports.
4. Consideration of the appellant's changing statements and justifiability of penalty imposed.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the recovery and seizure of silver and Indian currency from the appellant's premises by Customs officers. The appellant admitted to not following the provisions under Chapter IVB of the Customs Act, specifically related to the intimation of place of storage of specified goods. The failure to comply with Chapter IVB provisions led to the issuance of a show cause notice proposing confiscation of silver and Indian currency under relevant sections of the Customs Act.

2. The appellant argued that the silver, being ancestral property and not meant for export, should not be confiscated under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act. The appellant contended that Section 113 pertains to goods attempted to be improperly exported, and since the silver was not intended for export, confiscation was unjustified. The appellant further argued that penalty imposition should fall under Section 117, a residuary clause, as Section 114 applies to contraventions related to export goods.

3. The Departmental Representative highlighted the substantive nature of Chapter IVB provisions aimed at preventing illegal exports. The Ministry of Finance notification specified silver as a commodity under special measures to curb illegal exports. The provisions under Section 113(1) make goods liable to confiscation if Chapter IVB rules are contravened, emphasizing the mandatory nature of compliance. The changing statements of the appellant regarding the nature of the silver acquisition raised doubts about the appellant's credibility.

4. The adjudicating authority upheld the confiscation of silver and penalty imposition, considering the appellant's inconsistent statements and the mandatory nature of Chapter IVB provisions. The judge rejected the appellant's argument that Section 113 applies only to goods intended for improper export, emphasizing that non-compliance with Chapter IVB automatically renders goods liable to confiscation. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate, and the Commissioner's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed the confiscation of silver and penalty imposition under the Customs Act due to the appellant's non-compliance with Chapter IVB provisions, emphasizing the mandatory nature of such compliance and rejecting the appellant's arguments against confiscation based on the intended use of the goods.