2017 (5) TMI 802 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - seizure of gold bars - notice u/s 150 of the CA, 1962 - Held that - section 150 states that where any goods, not being confiscated goods, are to be sold after notice to the owner of the goods following the procedure as specified therein - the seized Gold was released on payment of Redemption Fine and penalty along with Customs duty payable thereon. Therefore, the provisions of section 150 would not be applicable herein as the goods were confiscated by the Authority. Board s Circular No.711/4/2006 Cus (AS) dated-14/02/2006 clarifies that the requirement to issue notice to the owner of the goods shall also obtain in case all appeal/legal remedies have not been exhausted by the owner of the goods - In the present case, all appeal/legal remedies have already been exhausted and the confiscation was not set aside. Hence, the said circular is not supporting the case of the appellant. Appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the sale of goods.
2. Determination of the amount payable for seized goods.
3. Applicability of legal precedents in similar cases.
4. Consideration of circulars issued by the Board in decision-making.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved the interpretation of Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962, which outlines the procedure for the sale of goods not confiscated. The Tribunal noted that in the case at hand, the seized Gold was released on payment of Redemption Fine and penalty along with Customs duty, indicating that the goods were confiscated by the Authority. Therefore, the provisions of Section 150 were deemed inapplicable as the goods were not subject to sale following the specified procedure.

2. The appellant sought a refund of the value of the gold, opposing the Commissioner's order to determine the amount payable based on market value. The Tribunal considered legal precedents cited, emphasizing that in cases where confiscation was not set aside, the determination of the amount payable should be based on the actual value of the goods, not the market value. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from previous judgments where confiscation was challenged and set aside, leading to a different application of the law.

3. The legal representatives referred to various judgments by the Calcutta High Court to support their arguments. The Tribunal scrutinized these references and concluded that the facts of those cases did not align with the circumstances of the present case. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of distinguishing between cases where confiscation was upheld versus cases where confiscation was overturned on appeal, emphasizing the relevance of such distinctions in determining the applicable legal principles.

4. The Tribunal considered Circular No.711/4/2006 Cus (AS) dated-14/02/2006, which clarified the requirement to issue notice to the owner of the goods if all appeal/legal remedies had not been exhausted. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, all appeal/legal remedies had been exhausted, and confiscation was not set aside. Consequently, the circular did not support the appellant's case, leading to the rejection of the appeal filed by the appellant and the allowance of the appeal filed by the Revenue. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the order of the Adjudicating Authority was restored based on the detailed analysis and legal considerations presented in the judgment.