2019 (5) TMI 168 - HC - Customs

Interpretation of statute - Redemption of goods denied - right of redemption has not been given to the appellants because the owner of the goods was known to them and that the owners did not come forward to redeem the goods - Section 125 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - If the owner of the goods is properly identified and submits to the authority of the customs, his agent, upon proper authorization by him can be allowed to avail of and redeem the goods under Section 125 of the said Act. Such an interpretation has to be given to Section 125 of the said Act. Thus, provided the owner of the goods declares his identity and details before the customs authority, submits to their jurisdiction, executes a proper instrument conferring authority on the appellant as his agent to the satisfaction of the customs authorities, they may allow the appellant to avail of the option provided in Section 125 on behalf of the owner as his constituted attorney or agent. To avail of such option, the owner must make the answer to declare and comply with the above conditions of this order within two months from date. Otherwise, the customs may take steps for dealing with the confiscated goods in accordance with law. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods by customs and denial of redemption option to the appellants.
2. Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding the right to redeem confiscated goods.
3. Dispute over the disclosure of the owner's identity and the role of the appellant as a courier.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of goods being confiscated by customs and the denial of the redemption option to the appellants. The tribunal's order of May 4, 2018, was upheld by the High Court. The respondent argued that the goods could be redeemed upon payment, but the right was denied as the owner did not come forward. The Customs Act's Section 125 allows for an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation.

2. The interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act is crucial in this case. The Act provides the option for the owner of goods, or the person from whose possession the goods were seized, to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The appellant claimed to be a courier and argued for the right to redeem the goods. However, the court disagreed, stating that as a courier, the appellant is the agent of the owner and should know the owner's identity.

3. The dispute over the disclosure of the owner's identity and the appellant's role as a courier was a key point of contention. The appellant's counsel conceded that the owner's identity was not kept secret, and the customs authorities were informed about the owner's details. The court directed that if the owner declares their identity, submits to customs jurisdiction, and authorizes the appellant as their agent, the appellant can redeem the goods under Section 125. The owner must comply within two months; otherwise, customs can proceed with the confiscated goods.

Overall, the judgment clarifies the rights of redemption under the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the owner's identity and authorizing agents for redemption. It highlights the need for proper compliance with the law and customs procedures to facilitate the redemption of confiscated goods.