9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 917 - AT - CustomsSeeking direction to the respondent to permit the inspection of the goods seized from the premises of the appellant - provisional release of goods - Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Rule 41 of the 1982 Procedure Rules - HELD THAT - Under rule 41, the Tribunal can make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to secure the ends of justice. The appellant is seeking inspection of his own goods that were seized on 19.10.2012 for the reason that the condition of the goods seized nine years ago would be an important factor for deciding whether the appellant would like to pursue the remedy for provisional release of the seized goods. The appellant had also deposited an amount of ₹ 27,50,669/- on 28.11.2013 to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 28 (5) of the Customs Act - Section 110 of the Customs Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Sub-section (1) of the section 110 provides that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize such goods. In the present case the goods have only been seized under sub-section(1) of section 110 and have not been confiscated under section 111 of the Customs Act. The ownership of the goods, therefore, continues to be with the person from whom the goods have been seized, namely the appellant. Rule 41 of the 1982 Procedure Rule provides that the Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to secure the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered necessary and expedient to issue a direction to the respondent Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to permit the applicant/appellant to inspect the goods seized on 29.10.2012 - the appellant shall appear before the Additional Director in the Office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi on August 31, 2021 at 11 am on which date the Additional Director may either permit the applicant to inspect the seized goods or may fix another date within the next one week for inspection of the seized goods. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of seized goods. 2. Inspection of seized goods. 3. Application of Rule 41 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 4. Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal under Section 129C of the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Provisional Release of Seized Goods: The appellant sought the provisional release of goods seized on 29.10.2012. The request was rejected by the Principal Commissioner, Customs (Preventive) on 11.09.2020, leading to the current appeal. The appellant had made multiple attempts, including filing writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, to secure the release of the goods. Despite depositing ?27,50,669/- on 28.11.2013 under Section 28(5) of the Customs Act, the goods were not released, as the total demand crystallized to ?52,19,582/-. 2. Inspection of Seized Goods: The appellant filed an application on 08.07.2021 seeking permission to inspect the seized high-end watches to ascertain their condition before pursuing the appeal. The Department had not responded to earlier requests for inspection. The appellant argued that the condition of the goods was crucial to decide whether to continue with the appeal for provisional release. 3. Application of Rule 41 of the 1982 Procedure Rules: The appellant's counsel argued that Rule 41 empowers the Tribunal to issue directions necessary to secure the ends of justice, including permitting the inspection of seized goods. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that Rule 41 allows for orders or directions to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice, even if no specific order has been passed by the Tribunal previously. 4. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Tribunal under Section 129C of the Customs Act: The Tribunal examined its powers under Section 129C(6) of the Customs Act, which allows it to regulate its own procedures. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court judgments, including *Union of India vs. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd.* and *The Income Tax Officer vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi*, to affirm that it has incidental and ancillary powers necessary to make its statutory powers effective. The Tribunal concluded that it has the authority to permit the inspection of seized goods to ensure justice. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the respondent Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to allow the appellant to inspect the seized goods on 31.08.2021 or to fix another date within the following week. The application was disposed of with these directions, and the appeal was scheduled for hearing on 04.10.2021. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced on 19.08.2021.
|
