2012 (5) TMI 156 - HC - Customs

Ownership of imported goods - Requirement of Import licence while importing digital multifunction printing and copying machines - held that - a person is unable to establish the ownership of the goods the respondent is vest with the power to reject the claim of the appellant and ultimately, correctly held that it is for the appellant to go before the authorities concerned after retracting confession and take all necessary steps to prove that he is the person holding out to be an importer and rightly stated if the appellant proves his ownership by retracting the statement before the authorities concerned, if he is able to establish his right as a person holding out to be an importer, he can go before the authorities concerned for assessing the consignment and release of his goods. It is needless to say, the burden is on the appellant to prove his ownership and release the goods as required by law.

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of import license for used materials.
2. Ownership and importer status under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Valuation and classification of imported goods.
5. Legal standing of statements given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Requirement of Import License for Used Materials:
The appellant contested that the imported used materials did not require a license. The court examined the facts where the appellant imported a consignment of 104 units of old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines and 10 units of old and used photocopying machines. The appellant argued that, according to the Chartered Engineer's report, the goods were correctly described and valued, and there should be no impediment to their clearance. However, the respondents countered that the goods were undervalued and imported without a valid license, making them liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Ownership and Importer Status under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant argued that an importer need not be the owner of the goods, referencing Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, which includes any person holding himself out to be the importer. The court noted that the appellant had made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act disowning ownership of the goods, which was not retracted. The court cited the Supreme Court ruling in UOI Vs Sampat Raj Dugar, emphasizing that the definition of 'importer' does not necessarily confer ownership and that the appellant abandoned the goods, thereby not qualifying as the importer.

3. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court upheld the respondents' contention that the goods were liable for confiscation due to undervaluation and lack of a valid import license. The court referenced the judgment in Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, which stated that violation of import conditions renders goods as prohibited under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. The court concluded that the appellant's false declaration and failure to meet import conditions justified confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m).

4. Valuation and Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant argued against the higher valuation set by the department, claiming a marginal difference between declared and assessed values. The court found that the department had the authority to reassess the value, especially given the two different types of goods imported. The court ruled that the appellant must approach the authorities for reassessment, as the goods were attempted to be cleared by undervaluing and without a valid import license.

5. Legal Standing of Statements Given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant contended that the statement given under Section 108 was retracted through a legal notice by his advocate. The court held that the appellant's statement disowning the goods was not retracted in a legally acceptable manner. The court emphasized that the burden of proving ownership and importer status lay with the appellant, who failed to establish this before the authorities.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that the appellant could not claim the release of goods without proving ownership and meeting import conditions. The appellant's failure to retract the statement disowning the goods and the violation of import regulations justified the confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, stating that the appellant must approach the authorities to prove ownership and seek the release of goods as per legal requirements.

← Previous Next →