2019 (7) TMI 1676 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - Misdeclaration of imported goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in entertaining the appeal against the letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the provisional release of the goods without indicating in it that the decision to reject was taken by the Commissioner and that he was only conveying it? - HELD THAT - The letter of the Assistant Commissioner nowhere indicates that the decision was taken by the Commissioner even though the copy of note sheet produced by the Ld. D.R. indicates so. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) entertaining the appeal against the order from the Assistant Commissioner. Provisional release of goods - Whether the goods in question can be released to the respondent holding them as the owner of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT - In the present case is concerned, it is undisputed that the invoices and bill of lading are in the name of the respondent. It is true that in their statement, the respondent denied that they are not the importers, which is now being disputed by the respondent s Counsel. However, the key to decide who the owner of the goods in case of international trade is the bill of lading, which is the document of title. Since the Bill of Lading is in the name of the respondent, they are the owners of the goods. It does not matter whether they have already paid for the goods or have yet paid so. It also does not matter whether after import, they in turn, sells the goods to the indenters who placed orders on them. The goods have been imported by the respondent and the Bill of Lading is in their name and therefore, they are the owner of the goods - Therefore, the goods can be provisionally released to them under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order of the first appellate authority is correct and calls for no interference - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to entertain the appeal against the rejection of provisional release.
2. Eligibility of the respondent as the owner of the goods for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. The first issue revolves around the Commissioner (Appeals) entertaining the appeal against the rejection of provisional release by the Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue argued that the Assistant Commissioner was merely conveying the decision of the Commissioner and thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal found that the letter from the Assistant Commissioner did not explicitly state that the decision was made by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in entertaining the appeal against the rejection.

2. The second issue pertains to whether the respondent qualifies as the owner of the goods for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the respondent was not the owner as they were acting as a conduit for others to import goods using their Importer Exporter Code (IEC). Conversely, the respondent argued that they were indeed the owner as evidenced by the invoices and bill of lading in their name. The Tribunal emphasized that in international trade, ownership is determined by the bill of lading, the document of title. As the bill of lading was in the respondent's name, they were considered the rightful owner of the goods. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the goods could be provisionally released to the respondent under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the first appellate authority, rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue. The judgment clarified the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirmed the respondent's eligibility as the owner of the goods for provisional release under the Customs Act, 1962.