2017 (1) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Goods unconditionally cleared and is not available for confiscation - whether the confiscation justified even in the case where the goods are not available for confiscation? - Held that - Tribunal in the case of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. 2012 (9) TMI 712 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , in the similar issue held that, the imported goods, though are liable to confiscation the said goods are not available for confiscation. In such a situation, the question of confiscating the said goods does not arise as the provision for grant of option of redemption under Section 125 will be rendered meaningless - confiscation not justified - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order confirming duty demand and non-confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Duty Demand and Confiscation: The appeal was made by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner confirming duty demand and deciding not to confiscate the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The argument put forth by the Revenue was that even in the absence of the goods, confiscation could be enforced. Various case laws were cited by the Revenue to support their stance, including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vibhuti Exports, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harbans Lal, and the case of G.M. Exports. However, it was pointed out that these cases involved different circumstances compared to the present case, where the goods were unconditionally cleared and not available for confiscation.

2. Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal referred to the case of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. where the issue of confiscation of goods was discussed in detail. The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of Sections 110, 111, 124, and 125 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that confiscation involves taking over the ownership of goods, and seizure is not always a prerequisite for confiscation. Different scenarios were outlined, such as goods being in the custody of authorities like Port Trust, where confiscation can occur without seizure. The case of Weston Components Ltd. was cited to illustrate the imposition of fines in lieu of confiscation when goods were released against a bond.

3. Decision and Rationale: Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal based on the finding that the imported goods, though liable for confiscation, were not available for confiscation. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision for the grant of an option of redemption under Section 125 would be rendered meaningless in such a situation. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner not to confiscate the goods was upheld, considering the specific circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions and relevant case laws, highlighting the importance of availability of goods for confiscation and the discretion of authorities in enforcing confiscation under the Customs Act.