2017 (9) TMI 1868 - CGOVT - Customs

Re-export of imported goods - baggage imported from Pakistan to India along with Cigarettes Dupattas - applicability of section 150 of CA - HELD THAT - After the applicant failed to comply with the condition for re-export of goods on payment of specified redemption fine, the goods stood confiscated on 5th September, 2011 and the ownership was vested with the Central Government. As a result the Attari Customs was having full authority to dispose of the said goods after 4-9-11 and no error is committed by them by disposing of the goods on 3-11-11. The applicant has heavily relied upon Section 150 of the Customs Act to assert her agreement that a prior notice to her was required before disposal of the goods. But the applicant has conveniently overlooked the significant fact that notice to the owner is to be given u/s 150 only if the goods are to be sold prior to confiscation and not after confiscation - Since in the instant case the goods were sold after confiscation thereof, section 150 is not applicable at all. Thus the applicant s case that she was not sounded by the Customs authorities before the disposal of their goods is completely misplaced. The Revision Application filed by the applicant is not maintainable and hence it is rejected.

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection by the adjudicating authority.
2. Failure to comply with re-export conditions within the stipulated period.
3. Authority of Customs to dispose of goods after confiscation.
4. Applicability of Section 150 of the Customs Act.
5. Legality of time extension by JS (RA) for re-export.

Analysis:
1. The applicant's refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the applicant could claim a refund of the balance amount as per Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the applicant contested this decision, stating that they were not notified before the disposal of goods and demanded a refund of ?65,500 along with 9% interest. The Central Government reviewed the case and found the applicant's arguments insufficient, leading to the rejection of the Revision Application.

2. The applicant failed to comply with the re-export conditions within the stipulated period, resulting in the confiscation of goods on 5th September 2011. Despite being informed by Attari Customs on 3-11-2011 that the goods were disposed of, the applicant did not provide a specific date of approaching the customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted this failure to comply and the applicant's attempt to extend the re-export time without disclosing the unavailability of goods, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

3. The Customs had the authority to dispose of the goods after confiscation on 5th September 2011. The applicant argued that prior notice under Section 150 of the Customs Act was necessary before disposal. However, the Central Government clarified that Section 150 applies only before confiscation, not after. Therefore, the applicant's claim of not being notified before disposal was deemed invalid.

4. The applicant's argument regarding the extension of time by JS (RA) until 14 January 2012 was deemed legally flawed. The goods were disposed of before the extended deadline, without verifying their availability. The Central Government emphasized that extending the time beyond the initial period was not supported by the Customs Act, 1962, indicating the lack of legal basis for the extension.

5. Considering the legal provisions and factual circumstances, the Central Government concluded that the Revision Application was not maintainable and subsequently rejected it. The decision was based on the applicant's failure to comply with re-export conditions, the authority of Customs to dispose of goods post-confiscation, and the misapplication of Section 150 of the Customs Act in the context of the case.

← Previous Next →