1992 (3) TMI 352 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the order of adjudication passed by the third respondent.
2. Confiscation of non-declared goods and cellulose acetate cuttings under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Valuation method for non-declared goods.
4. Authority to order mutilation under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Imposition of personal penalty and redemption fine.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Order of Adjudication:
The petitioner challenges the adjudication order dated 27.12.1991. The Court had previously set aside a similar adjudication order in W.P. No. 15619 of 1991, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. Despite this, the petitioner alleges that the new order is arbitrary and lacks details on how the assessable value was determined.

2. Confiscation of Non-Declared Goods and Cellulose Acetate Cuttings:
The petitioner filed a bill of entry for 13.8 metric tonnes of cellulose acetate cuttings. Upon examination, it was found that the consignment included non-declared goods concealed among the declared ones. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of these non-declared goods under Sections 111(m) and (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the cellulose acetate cuttings under Section 119 of the same Act. An option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine was provided under Section 125.

3. Valuation Method for Non-Declared Goods:
The adjudicating authority fixed the value of the non-declared goods after market enquiries. The petitioner contested the valuation method, arguing that the items should be valued separately due to their different kinds and qualities. The authority refused to revise the value as the petitioner did not provide evidence to rebut the department's valuation.

4. Authority to Order Mutilation under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner requested the release of goods after mutilation, which the adjudicating officer denied, citing a lack of power under Section 24 and the absence of relevant rules framed by the Central Government. The Court examined Section 24, which allows the Central Government to make rules for mutilation but does not directly empower adjudicating authorities to order mutilation. The Court concluded that without such rules, the adjudicating authority cannot order mutilation, as it would result in inconsistent decisions without guidelines.

5. Imposition of Personal Penalty and Redemption Fine:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked particulars on the market value and how it was determined, similar to the earlier quashed order. The Court noted that the adjudicating authority did not provide the petitioner with the details necessary to rebut the market value information collected by the department. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order regarding the personal penalty and redemption fine, remanding the matter for reconsideration with proper opportunity given to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the impugned order's imposition of personal penalty and redemption fine was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration within six weeks, with an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. No costs were awarded.