2003 (3) TMI 122 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ application in view of the alternative remedy under Section 130A of the Customs Act.
2. Legality of the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs.
3. Confiscation of 11.5 MT of lithophone, a non-prohibited good.
4. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the Customs Authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Application:
The Court addressed whether the writ application could be entertained despite the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 130A of the Customs Act. The Court noted that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertaining a writ application, particularly when it is alleged that the order impugned is contrary to a law declared by the Supreme Court or violates principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioners' allegations warranted investigation in a writ application, thus overruling the preliminary objection.

2. Legality of the Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty:
The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Siemens Limited v. Collector of Customs precluded the imposition of redemption fines and penalties when goods are ordered to be re-exported. The Court distinguished the present case from Siemens, noting that in Siemens, the Customs Authority provided an option to re-export without payment of duty, whereas in the present case, re-export was permitted only after payment of redemption fine. The Court concluded that the decision in Siemens did not apply to cases where re-export is conditional upon payment of redemption fine, thereby upholding the majority decision of the Tribunal.

3. Confiscation of 11.5 MT of Lithophone:
The petitioners contended that 11.5 MT of lithophone, being non-prohibited goods, should not have been confiscated. The Court held that under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, the Customs Authority can confiscate the entire consignment if there is a mis-description of goods, regardless of whether the goods are prohibited. The Court found that there was a definite mis-description in the bill of entry, justifying the confiscation of the entire consignment, including the lithophone.

4. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the Customs Authority acted against the principles of natural justice by relying on undisclosed documents to conclude collusion between the petitioners and the foreign manufacturer. The Court noted that the initial burden was on the petitioners to prove that the mis-sent goods were a bona fide mistake by the foreign supplier. The Customs Authority was not required to disclose their materials unless the petitioners provided sufficient evidence to contradict the findings. The Court found the Customs Authority's findings of mala fide intention reasonable and not perverse, thus rejecting the petitioners' contention.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ application, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The decision of the Customs Authority and the majority decision of the Tribunal were upheld, and the redemption fine and personal penalties imposed were deemed lawful. The confiscation of the entire consignment, including the non-prohibited lithophone, was justified due to the mis-description of goods. The Court also found no violation of principles of natural justice in the Customs Authority's proceedings. No order as to costs was made.