1986 (8) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of absolute confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legal infirmity in invoking statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Act.
3. Admissibility of redemption of goods on payment of a fine.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was directed against the order of absolute confiscation of goods such as shoes, maxies, children frocks, TDK cassette tapes, Parasols, etc., valued at Rs. 6,223/-, confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Madras. The appellant was found in possession of these goods, which were seized by the police and later handed over to Customs authorities. The appellant admitted to the goods being of foreign origin, purchased for resale. The proceedings resulted in the impugned order appealed against.

Issue 2:
The learned counsel for the appellant did not contest the technical contravention but highlighted a legal infirmity in the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs. The Assistant Collector invoked Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant. However, the Member (J) found this approach erroneous, citing precedents like 'Gian Chand and Others v. Punjab' and 'Asst. Collector of Customs, Baroda v. Mukbujusein Ibrahim Pirjada.' These cases held that when goods are seized by police authorities, the presumption under Section 123 cannot be invoked. The Member (J) emphasized that the appellant did not lose possession of the goods, and the statutory presumption was incorrectly applied.

Issue 3:
Despite confirming the contravention, the Member (J) allowed the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, considering the nature and value of the articles. The penalty imposed on the appellant was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed except for the modification allowing redemption of goods. The Member (J) upheld the penalty but permitted redemption, maintaining the interests of justice.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the appeal against the confiscation of goods, identified a legal infirmity in invoking statutory presumption, and allowed redemption of goods on payment of a fine, while confirming the penalty imposed on the appellant.