2007 (8) TMI 211 - AT - Customs

Name of the consignee changed by the importer/seller when he found that it is difficult to sell the goods to original consignee Impugned goods sold to appellant/new consignee Appellant is the rightful owner of the goods as he duly filed B/E so detention order confiscation & penalty is wrong.

Summary

Issues involved:
Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty on the appellants M/s. Sheetal Enterprises.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata was against the confiscation of goods imported under a specific rotation and the imposition of fines and penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the impugned goods had been seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) following an inquiry against previous consignments diverted to the domestic market. However, it was found that the present consignment, initially consigned to another entity, had been sold to the appellants. The appellants had taken steps to claim ownership of the goods, including amending the bill of lading and filing a bill of entry with Customs. Importantly, there was no evidence connecting the appellants to the defaulting entity responsible for the diversion of previous consignments. The Tribunal highlighted that it is not uncommon in international trade for a seller to change the consignee's name when facing difficulties in selling to the original consignee. Given these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the notice issued to the appellants lacked a legal basis, and the order for confiscation and penalties was unfounded.

The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants, as the rightful owners of the goods, had followed proper procedures by filing a bill of entry and awaiting clearance by Customs and DRI. There was no evidence to suggest any attempt by the appellants to remove the goods without the necessary permissions. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice and the impugned order lacked legal basis concerning the appellants and ordered the quashing of the part of the order related to confiscation and penalties. The appellants were permitted to pay the assessed duty and clear the goods from Customs/DRI control. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order in favor of the appellants.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence connecting the appellants to any wrongdoing, the proper procedures followed by the appellants as rightful owners of the goods, and the absence of legal basis for the confiscation and penalties imposed. The Tribunal's ruling provided relief to the appellants, allowing them to pay the assessed duty and clear the goods without facing unwarranted confiscation or penalties.