2008 (11) TMI 184 - HC - Customs

Abandoned Goods Recovery Section 142 - duty of the abandoned goods which was not cleared from the bonded warehouse cannot be claimed as customs authorities sold the goods as it was not cleared from the bonded warehouse within the time allowed and treated it as abandoned goods and appropriated its proceeds

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of customs duty on imported goods sold by customs authorities.
2. Claim of customs duty on goods under custody of the Sub Court.
3. Dispute over ownership of goods in custody of the Sub Court.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the claim of customs duty on imported goods sold by customs authorities. The case involves a company that was ordered to be wound up, and two consignments of zinc callots imported by the company were sold by the customs department as abandoned goods. The Official Liquidator filed a claim to transfer the sale proceeds to the company's assets. The Assistant Collector of Customs claimed a higher amount for customs duty and allied charges. The Company Court dismissed the claim, stating that once goods are sold in auction as abandoned, the owner cannot claim any right to the proceeds. However, the court allowed a portion of the customs department's claim, which the judgment finds unjustified. Referring to the Customs Act and a previous Bombay High Court decision, the judgment concludes that customs authorities cannot claim duty on goods already sold as abandoned.

2. The second issue pertains to the claim of customs duty on goods under the custody of the Sub Court. The Official Liquidator admitted part of the customs department's claim but rejected a portion related to the zinc callots under the custody of the Sub Court. The judgment highlights that the claim can only be filed after the dispute over ownership of the goods is resolved in the Sub Court. It criticizes the Company Court for allowing the customs authorities' claim regarding the duty on the zinc callots sold and those under the Sub Court's custody, emphasizing that such claims should await the resolution of the ownership dispute.

3. Lastly, the judgment addresses the ongoing dispute over the ownership of the goods in the custody of the Sub Court. It emphasizes that any claim related to these goods should be pursued only after the resolution of the ownership matter. The Company Court's decision to allow the customs authorities' claim without considering the ownership dispute is deemed incorrect. The judgment dismisses one application and allows another in light of the issues discussed regarding the customs duty claims on the imported goods and those under the Sub Court's custody.