2010 (12) TMI 169 - AT - Customs

Advance license - The consignment was inspected by officers of SIIB on 1.10.2004 and the same was seized as it appeared to the officers that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act - It is thus clear that the clearance on payment of duty is being sought after the customs authorities detected a fraudulent attempt to clear the very same goods without payment of duty under the advance licence scheme which would have gone through but for the timely detection by the customs authorities Consequently, since M/s. Sandip Exports are not claiming the impugned goods and have not cleared the same on payment of duty and redemption fine, the impugned goods having been confiscated shall vest in the Government

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty exemption under Customs Notification No. 48/99
2. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act
3. Differential duty demand
4. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act
5. Claim of ownership by another party

Analysis:

1. The case involved the denial of duty exemption claimed under Customs Notification No. 48/99 for a consignment imported by M/s. Sandip Exports. The adjudicating Commissioner demanded a differential duty of Rs.20,34,882 for the goods covered under a specific Bill of Entry. The Commissioner also ordered the confiscation of the goods valued at Rs.18,49,278 under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act.

2. M/s. Sandip Exports appealed the decision, and the Tribunal vacated the penalty imposed on them. However, M/s. Ishwar Impex claimed ownership of the goods, stating that they had purchased the goods from the foreign exporter and were willing to pay the appropriate duty and redemption fine to clear the goods.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and noted that the impugned goods were initially sought to be cleared without payment of duty, leading to a significant potential revenue loss. The customs authorities detected discrepancies, leading to the confiscation of the goods. M/s. Ishwar Impex's claim to ownership came after the authorities' investigations.

4. The Tribunal found that M/s. Ishwar Impex's belated claim for clearance of the goods, made after the customs authorities detected violations, was not valid. The customs authorities were justified in refusing to entertain M/s. Ishwar Impex's request to clear the goods in their name, especially considering the timeliness of the claim and the potential revenue implications.

5. As the penalty on M/s. Sandip Exports had already been set aside, allowing M/s. Ishwar Impex to clear the goods on payment of normal duty and a nominal redemption fine would negatively impact public revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected M/s. Ishwar Impex's appeal, and the confiscated goods were to vest in the Government since M/s. Sandip Exports did not claim or clear the goods.

This detailed analysis covers the duty exemption, confiscation, differential duty demand, penalty imposition, and the claim of ownership by M/s. Ishwar Impex, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment.