2016 (7) TMI 465 - AT - Customs

Absolute confiscation of seized 40 M.T. TCO Betel nut locally called as Supari - Fit for human consumption or not - Prohibited goods or not - Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The Original authority at Para 25.1 of Order-in-Original has held the said goods to be prohibited goods by coming to the conclusion that the said goods contravened the provision of section 7(1) (c) of Customs Act, 1962. The said provision is empowering the Board to appoint the Routes by which alone specified goods may passed by land or inland water into or out of India or to or from any land customs station from or to any land frontier. We take the note of facts that he said goods were not intercepted at any point of entry into India. We hold prima facie opinion that the said goods are not prohibited. We, therefore, order that the applicant may be allowed to draw the sample from confiscated goods, get them tested by Food & Drugs Administration of the state and if found fit for human consumption then provisional release of the said goods shall be allowed to the applicant within 15 (Fifteen) days of receipt of report from state authority on Revenue deposit of ₹ 10(Ten) lakhs and on filling of bond of full value of the goods by the applicant. - Decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought to prevent auction of confiscated Supari.
2. Appeal filed against Order-in-Original for absolute confiscation of seized Betel nut.
3. Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning redemption of goods.
4. Classification of goods as prohibited or non-prohibited.
5. Provisional release of confiscated goods for testing and potential human consumption.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking a direction to prevent the auction of confiscated Supari by the Commissioner of Customs (Prevention), Lucknow. The appeal against the Order-in-Original for the absolute confiscation of 40 M.T. TCO Betel nut was pending before the tribunal.

2. The appellant highlighted that the Original Authority did not provide an option to redeem the goods and intended to auction them. Both parties agreed that certain documents were necessary for their arguments. The Departmental Representative contended that the confiscated goods were prohibited goods.

3. The tribunal considered the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, which distinguishes between prohibited and non-prohibited goods. If goods are non-prohibited, the Adjudicating authority must offer the option to redeem them by paying a fine. Prohibited goods are defined under Section 2(33) of the Act.

4. The Original Authority classified the goods as prohibited based on a provision of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the tribunal, after examination, opined that the goods were not prohibited as they were not intercepted at any Indian entry point. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the appellant to draw samples for testing by the state's Food & Drugs Administration for potential human consumption.

5. The tribunal ordered the provisional release of the goods if found fit for human consumption, subject to a revenue deposit and bond by the appellant. The appeal was set for final hearing, and the Registry was directed to list other connected appeals. The Miscellaneous Application was allowed as per the stated terms.