1986 (4) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Locus standi of the appellant to claim confiscated goods.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the Order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai, which held that the appellant had no locus standi to claim the goods absolutely confiscated under the impugned order. The Preventive Officers of the Customs Department seized 18 bundles of Indian lungies meant for illegal export, consigned to a fictitious person. The partner of the appellant-firm claimed ownership of the goods, arguing that the consignee had not paid for them. The appellant contended that they retained title to the goods as they had not parted with relevant documents like the original invoice and lorry bill. The Departmental Representative argued that the goods were seized based on specific information and highlighted the non-production of account books by the appellant. The Tribunal considered whether the appellant retained ownership of the goods under seizure. It was established that the goods were dispatched to a consignee in Madurai with a cash bill, indicating an intention to sell. The Tribunal referred to the Sale of Goods Act, stating that passing of property is crucial, not just payment. The Division Bench ruling of the Karnataka High Court was cited, emphasizing that a contract for sale transferred property to the buyer. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had no locus standi to claim the goods, as the property had transferred to the buyer, the consignee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the question of confiscation was not addressed.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of locus standi of the appellant to claim confiscated goods. The Tribunal analyzed the circumstances surrounding the seizure of goods meant for illegal export and the appellant's claim of ownership. The key point of contention was whether the appellant retained title to the goods under seizure or had divested themselves of ownership by dispatching the goods to the consignee with the intention to sell. The Tribunal referenced the Sale of Goods Act and legal principles to determine that the property had transferred to the consignee upon the contract for sale, rendering the appellant without the right to claim ownership. The judgment highlighted the significance of the passing of property in sale transactions and dismissed the appeal based on the finding that the appellant lacked locus standi to claim the confiscated goods.