9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of zinc ingots under Customs Act 2. Imposition of penalty under sections 111(d) and 112(b) of the Customs Act 3. Burden of proof on the Department 4. Maintainability of writ petition despite alternative remedy Analysis: 1. The petitioner faced proceedings under sections 111(d) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, where zinc ingots in the petitioner's godown were directed to be confiscated. The petitioner was given the option to redeem the ingots on payment of a fine. A penalty was also imposed under section 112(b). The judgment highlighted the provisions of the Customs Act related to confiscation and penalties for improper importation of goods. 2. The judgment analyzed the facts of the case, focusing on the marks on the zinc ingots and the Assistant Collector's assertion of foreign origin. It questioned the leap from the presence of the ingots to proving wrongful importation. The burden of proof was emphasized to lie with the Department, and it was noted that there was no evidence of contravention of import laws. The judgment found the order unsustainable due to lack of foundation for wrongful import and failure to establish the petitioner's knowledge or belief of confiscation under section 111. 3. The judgment addressed the objection raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative appeal remedy. Despite acknowledging the objection, the court chose to entertain the petition based on a clear error of law in the impugned order. The court declined to dismiss the writ petition solely on the ground of having an alternative remedy. 4. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order for confiscation and penalty. No costs were awarded in the judgment. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting wrongful importation and the failure to establish the petitioner's knowledge or belief regarding the confiscation of the goods under the Customs Act.
|
