2021 (7) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Abandonment of goods - relinquishment of title to the goods - out of charge order already given by the proper officer for home consumption at a prior date - Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The appellant had paid the fine amount of ₹ 30,000/- and the penal amount of ₹ 10,000/- vide Challan No.2017457502 and the mode of payment being e-payment, the appellant did not challenge, but paid the same without questioning the legality of the same. This means that the offence, as alleged, had indeed been committed, which aspect is clearly hit by the proviso to Section 23(2) ibid., which takes away the right of the owner to relinquish his title to such goods. It is too late a stage for the appellant to raise an issue in so far as the levy of fine and penalty are concerned since, without questioning the same at the appropriate time before making the e-payment, the said plea cannot be urged for the first time now. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the collection of fine and penalty was without the authority of law cannot be gone into by this forum now. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of refund of Duty

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of a refund of Duty to the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund on the grounds of an offence being committed, leading to the imposition of a fine and penalty. The authority stated that once the goods were given out of charge for home consumption, the Customs no longer had control over them, and the question of abandoning the goods did not arise under Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

In the First Appellate proceedings, it was noted that the goods were released after all Customs procedures were completed, and an offence was committed due to mis-declaration, resulting in fines and penalties. The First Appellate Authority upheld the rejection of the refund, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

During the hearing, it was found that the appellant had paid the fine and penalty amounts without challenging their legality, indicating the commission of the alleged offence. The forum dismissed the appellant's contention that the collection of fines and penalties lacked legal authority since it was raised belatedly. Additionally, the appellant's failure to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's observation regarding the absence of a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing weakened their claim of lack of opportunity.

Ultimately, the forum found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, emphasizing that the appellant's actions, including the payment of fines and penalties without protest and the failure to provide evidence or challenge key observations, did not support their case.

This detailed analysis highlights the key points and legal reasoning behind the judgment regarding the denial of the Duty refund to the appellant.