9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of the Bill of Entry filed by the appellants. 3. Ownership and transfer of goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962: The primary issue was whether the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was lawful. Section 111(d) states that any goods imported or attempted to be imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by the Customs Act or any other law shall be liable for confiscation. The goods in question, components of 14" black & white TV sets valued at Rs. 3 lakhs c.i.f., were seized on the belief that they were imported unauthorizedly and were liable for confiscation. The Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta, had ordered the confiscation of these goods. It was argued by the appellants that the confiscation was not justified as the goods were legally imported and there was no contravention of the Customs Act. The learned SDR contended that the goods had different suppliers and invoices, suggesting they were not the same goods initially imported by M/s. Clarion TV (P) Ltd. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were indeed imported in accordance with the law and that there was no prohibition contravened under the Customs Act or any other law. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods was deemed unlawful. 2. Validity of the Bill of Entry Filed by the Appellants: M/s. Clarion TV (P) Ltd. had initially filed a WR Bill of Entry for the goods but did not clear them due to financial difficulties. Subsequently, M/s. Telerama (India) Ltd. filed a letter requesting the cancellation of the Bill of Entry filed by M/s. Clarion TV (P) Ltd. and for fresh noting in their favor. The appellants provided documentation, including letters from the original importer and the steamer agent, invoices, and authorization from the bank to take delivery of the goods. The learned SDR argued that the amendment of the Bill of Lading and the import manifest was not supported by proper documentation and authorization from the shipper. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had provided sufficient evidence, including a letter from Compo Exports explaining the transfer of goods and the amendment of the Bill of Lading. The Tribunal concluded that the Bill of Entry filed by the appellants was valid and should be noted in their favor. 3. Ownership and Transfer of Goods: The ownership of the goods was another critical issue. M/s. Clarion TV (P) Ltd. claimed they relinquished their title to the goods due to financial difficulties, and the goods were then sold to M/s. Telerama (India) Ltd. by Compo Exports. The appellants provided letters and documents showing the purchase of goods from Compo Exports and the payment made to Vijaya Bank. The learned SDR contended that the goods invoiced by M/s. S.P. Electronics to M/s. Clarion TV (P) Ltd. were different from those invoiced by Compo Exports to the appellants. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were the same, and the difference in invoicing was explained by the letter from Compo Exports, which stated that they had purchased the goods from M/s. S.P. Electronics and sold them to the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' ownership of the goods was established, and there were no rival claimants. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unlawful. The Bill of Entry filed by the appellants was valid, and their ownership of the goods was established. The appeal was allowed, and the authorities were directed to note the Bill of Entry in favor of the appellants and allow clearance of the goods after observing the necessary legal formalities.
|
