1979 (8) TMI 77 - CGOVT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of confiscation under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued beyond the stipulated period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Quantum of penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Alleged violation of natural justice principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Confiscation under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962
The Additional Collector of Customs adjudicated that the goods seized from Shri Karthikeyan's residence were liable to confiscation as he failed to satisfactorily explain the licit acquisition of the goods. The confiscation was upheld by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which found sufficient evidence that the petitioner was engaged in smuggling activities. The Board concluded that the offence of illicit acquisition of the goods was established beyond doubt, even without invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act.

2. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962
The petitioner contended that Section 123 was wrongly invoked as the goods were not notified under this section at the time of seizure. The Board agreed with the petitioner on this point but noted that the goods were notified under Chapter IVA, which required the petitioner to produce vouchers or evidence of customs clearance. The petitioner failed to do so, leading to the presumption that the goods were smuggled. Consequently, the confiscation under Section 111(p) was deemed maintainable.

3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued Beyond the Stipulated Period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962
The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond the six-month period stipulated under Section 110(2), rendering the confiscation invalid. The Government observed that non-compliance with Section 110(2) merely confers a right to the return of the goods but does not invalidate further proceedings regarding confiscation and penalty. This view was supported by several High Court decisions and the Supreme Court in Charan Das Malhotra's case. Therefore, the contention was rejected.

4. Quantum of Penalty Imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
The petitioner argued that the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was disproportionate to the value of the goods, which was stated to be Rs. 12,500/-. The Government observed that considering the contraband nature of the goods, including a large quantity of imported liquor, and the need for a deterrent penalty under Customs Law, no relief in the penalty amount was warranted.

5. Alleged Violation of Natural Justice Principles
The petitioner raised technical objections, including that the show cause notice was issued by the Collector of Customs while the case was adjudicated by the Additional Collector, which was claimed to violate natural justice principles. The Board ruled that the Additional Collector was also a Collector of Customs under Section 2(8) of the Customs Act, and thus, there was no violation of natural justice. The Board also noted that the value of the goods fell within the competence of the Additional Collector.

Conclusion:
The Government of India confirmed the Board's order-in-appeal in all respects and rejected the revision application. The confiscation of the goods and the imposition of the penalty were upheld, with the Government emphasizing the need for deterrent penalties in cases involving contraband goods.