2022 (10) TMI 751 - HC - Customs

Redemption fine - whether the revenue could adjust redemption fine against the sale proceeds from goods which were sold by it upon confiscation? - HELD THAT - The respondent/revenue, having sold the goods, which it could not have done, since the appeal was pending at the relevant time, we find that there is no good reason for adjustment of redemption fine. Appeal disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and sale of goods.
2. Adjustment of redemption fine against sale proceeds.
3. Legal implications of selling goods during the pendency of an appeal.
4. Entitlement to sale proceeds post-auction.
5. Validity of the Tribunal's decision.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation and Sale of Goods:
The primary issue revolves around the confiscation of goods by the Customs authority and the subsequent sale of these goods. The Tribunal's larger bench had to determine if the sale proceeds from auctioned goods should remain with the government or be paid to the importer after deductions. The Tribunal concluded that upon confiscation, the goods could be sold, and the sale proceeds would vest with the government. Penalty could still be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, and an order for payment of all sale proceeds without deduction of redemption fine could not be issued.

2. Adjustment of Redemption Fine Against Sale Proceeds:
The Tribunal's larger bench held that redemption fine could be imposed even after the goods were sold, as the sale proceeds replace the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that no redemption fine could be imposed after the goods had been sold. The Tribunal emphasized that the sale proceeds vest in the Central Government upon confiscation, and a direction for payment of sale proceeds to the respondent could not be issued without a request for redemption.

3. Legal Implications of Selling Goods During the Pendency of an Appeal:
The Tribunal noted that the goods were sold while the appeal was pending, which was contrary to law. The appellant argued that the revenue could not sell the goods during the pendency of the appeal and hence could not adjust the redemption fine against the sale proceeds. The Tribunal found that the revenue's action of selling the goods during the appeal was not justified.

4. Entitlement to Sale Proceeds Post-Auction:
The appellant received a portion of the sale proceeds after adjustments for penalty and auction charges. The Tribunal concluded that since the goods were not available for redemption, the redemption fine could not be adjusted against the sale proceeds. The Tribunal emphasized that the revenue, having sold the goods during the appeal, could not justify adjusting the redemption fine.

5. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal's larger bench decision was set aside by the High Court. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view that the redemption fine could be adjusted against the sale proceeds. The High Court held that since the goods were sold during the pendency of the appeal, the revenue could not adjust the redemption fine. The High Court ordered that the decision of the Tribunal's larger bench be set aside and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the revenue's action of selling the goods during the appeal was contrary to law and that the redemption fine could not be adjusted against the sale proceeds. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant.

← Previous Next →