2019 (6) TMI 1158 - AT - Customs

Parcel post - non-compliance with the requirements of parcel post - prohibited item or not - HELD THAT - The original authority has erred in concluding that, in post parcel, the importer was required to declare himself to be so. Under the law relating to postal articles, the postal authorities are custodians till delivery at the address. Until that authority made efforts to deliver the parcel but were unable to do so, the presumption of there being no importer does not arise. It was, therefore, improper to deny the option to redemption by the person to whom the parcel was addressed and would be the recipient. There is no justification for absolute confiscation as inability to identify of an importer does not suffice. The inability to deliver would automatically have rendered the confiscation absolute as option to redeem could not have been exercised. Matter remanded back to the original authority for a fresh adjudication after giving due notice to the importer and to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of electronic components and wrist watch hands under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty for failure to claim goods.
3. Allegation of lack of notice to the appellant regarding change of address.
4. Compliance with requirements of Notification No. 78-Cus., dated 2nd April, 1938 in relation to parcel post.
5. Interpretation of law relating to postal articles and importer declaration.
6. Justification for absolute confiscation and denial of option to redemption.
7. Remand of the matter for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was proceeded against under the Customs Act, 1962 for the confiscation of electronic components and wrist watch hands found in post parcels consigned to him. The goods were confiscated absolutely without offering the option to redeem as the importer did not claim them. The Order-in-Original also did not impose a penalty for the same reason.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that they were not placed on notice and despite a change of address being on record, notices continued to be sent to the old address. The Authorized Representative contended that the appellant was not diligent in informing about the address change, and it cannot now be pleaded that notice was not served.

3. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision regarding compliance with Notification No. 78-Cus., dated 2nd April, 1938, which prescribed requirements for parcel post. The contention was that non-compliance rendered the goods prohibited for import under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The impugned order was found to have erred in concluding that the importer needed to declare themselves in a post parcel. The law regarding postal articles indicates that postal authorities are custodians until delivery at the address. The inability to deliver does not automatically imply the absence of an importer, and denying redemption option was improper.

5. Despite formalities prescribed by Section 82 of the Customs Act and previous decisions, the Tribunal found no justification for absolute confiscation solely based on the inability to identify an importer. The inability to deliver should have automatically led to confiscation, but the option to redeem could not be exercised.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication. The directive included giving proper notice to the importer and passing orders in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.