2015 (4) TMI 239 - SC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - appellant had failed to deposit the recovery amount depicted - Held that - It is apparent, that in view of the appellant s written acknowledgement he could have been required to make good the deficiency in the goods deposited with him, by making payment therefor. The complaint also alleges, that action was initiated against the appellant, only on account of his having not deposited the required amount, consequent upon the issuance of Demand Notice - ends of justice would be met, if the the appellant deposits the amount indicated in the Demand Notice dated 05.09.1995, along with interest at the rate of 9%. The appellant undertakes to deposit the amount claimed from him by the Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong , along with interest above-mentioned, within four weeks from today. In the event of the appellant not making the above deposit, the instant appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed, resulting in the revival of the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal , Manipur. In case such a deposit is not made, it shall also be open to the Customs Department, to recover the amount due, as arrears of land revenue. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods by Customs Department and safe custody by appellant.
2. Failure to deposit payment leading to criminal proceedings.
3. Appeal against criminal proceedings and High Court's decision.

Confiscation of Goods and Safe Custody:
The Supreme Court judgment pertains to the confiscation of goods by the Customs Department and their temporary safekeeping by the appellant. The appellant was contacted by the Customs Department to store the seized goods in his godown due to the lack of warehousing facilities. The appellant executed a superdnama undertaking to produce the goods intact when required by the authorities. However, it was later discovered that the appellant did not have the entire quantity of goods in his custody, leading to a demand notice for payment in lieu of the deficiency of goods. The appellant failed to make the required deposit, resulting in the initiation of criminal proceedings against him.

Failure to Deposit Payment and Criminal Proceedings:
The appellant's failure to deposit the required amount as per the demand notice dated 05.09.1995 led to the Customs Department initiating criminal proceedings against him. The Deputy Commissioner issued a detention order for recovery of the outstanding amount. The appellant, dissatisfied with the criminal proceedings, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the case. However, the High Court rejected his plea, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court against the criminal proceedings and the High Court's decision.

Appeal Against Criminal Proceedings and High Court Decision:
Upon hearing both parties, the Supreme Court found that the criminal proceedings were initiated due to the appellant's failure to deposit the amount as per the demand notice. The Court noted that the appellant had acknowledged his liability in the superdnama executed earlier. The appellant expressed willingness to pay the compensation amount along with interest. The Court directed the appellant to deposit the specified amount within four weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed, and the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate would be revived. The Court quashed the proceedings before the Magistrate upon the appellant's compliance with the payment directive.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by outlining the terms for the appellant to settle the outstanding amount, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the deposit requirement to avoid dismissal of the appeal and potential recovery actions by the Customs Department.