2015 (4) TMI 1214 - HC - Customs

Confiscation - timber of Nepal origin - seizure - Section 110 of the Customs Act - Held that - Customs Act has been enacted not only for collecting duty from importer of goods but also for other purposes, which is enumerated under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act and to achieve such objective, purpose, seizure of timber imported into India without obtaining Import-Export Code, Plant Quarantine certificate and certificate of origin from Chamber of Commerce, Nepal to confirm its country of origin for necessary verification, to prevent illegal import of goods in the country was made under impugned seizure. Further the truck loaded with the timber did not pass through the authorized route found parked without document indicated above as such officer who seized the timber had reason to believe that its seizure was necessary to initiate proceeding under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by Union of India.
2. Seizure of timber of foreign origin loaded on a truck.
3. Quashing of the seizure order under the Indo-Nepal Treaty.
4. Validity of the seizure and confiscation proceedings under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The High Court considered an Interlocutory Application filed by the Union of India regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The court found that there was sufficient cause for the delay and thus condoned the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal.

2. The appeal was filed by the Union of India and Customs authorities challenging the order quashing the seizure of timber of foreign origin loaded on a truck. The court noted that the seizure was made to verify the country of origin of the timber and to ensure compliance with import regulations, such as possessing a valid Import-Export code and Plant Quarantine Certificate. It was emphasized that the Customs Act serves purposes beyond duty collection, including preventing illegal imports.

3. The order quashing the seizure was based on the interpretation of the Indo-Nepal Treaty, which exempted timber of Nepal origin from customs duty. The court disagreed with this interpretation and highlighted the necessity of confirming the country of origin through proper certification to prevent illegal imports. The court set aside the order quashing the seizure and allowed the customs authorities to proceed in accordance with the law.

4. The court further explained that the seizure of the timber without the required documentation was justified under Section 110 of the Customs Act. It was emphasized that the seizure was necessary to verify compliance with import regulations and to prevent illegal imports. The court upheld the authority of the customs officers to seize the timber and initiate proceedings under the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the High Court addressed the delay in filing the appeal, upheld the seizure of timber to verify compliance with import regulations, disagreed with the interpretation of the Indo-Nepal Treaty regarding customs duty exemption, and allowed the customs authorities to proceed with the seizure and confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act.