2017 (9) TMI 1389 - AT - Customs

Release of confiscated goods - illegal import - Gold Biscuits - redemption fine - applicability of Section 125 of the Act - Held that - the Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant has failed to prove the sole question of ownership of the said goods and thus disentitled to claim option to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Act - It is apparent on the face of the record that the appellant failed to establish the ownership of the seized goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of release of Gold Biscuits due to Redemption Fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. Interpretation of Section 125 for fine in lieu of confiscation. Failure to establish ownership of seized goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the Commissioner of Customs' order denying the release of 25 Gold Biscuits due to a Redemption Fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. An earlier Tribunal order partially allowed the appeal by rejecting penalties but upholding the confiscation of the gold. The matter was remitted by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court to determine whether the appellants could redeem the confiscated gold by paying a fine. The Commissioner of Customs subsequently ordered absolute confiscation of the gold.

2. The arguments were heard, and the Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant, alleged to be the owner of the illegally imported gold, should be entitled to claim a Redemption Fine under Section 125 of the Act. Section 125 provides an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The Counsel emphasized the importance of proving ownership to exercise this option. The provision was cited, emphasizing that the owner or the person from whose possession the goods were seized could be given the option to pay a fine in place of confiscation.

3. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the seized goods, which is crucial to claim the fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125. The goods were seized from the appellant's employees, and the appellant's claim of purchasing the gold from a specific company was not accepted. The Authority found that the appellant did not establish ownership, despite citing case laws supporting the release of seized goods upon payment of a fine. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving ownership to exercise the option under Section 125.

4. The judgment concluded that since the appellant failed to establish ownership of the seized goods, there was no reason to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order. The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of evidence supporting ownership, despite the clear legal provisions of Section 125. The decision was pronounced in open court on 28.04.2017.