2009 (7) TMI 308 - HC - Customs

Whom can be given option to redeem the goods Respondent claimed to be carrier of gold on behalf of another person - Section 125(1) states that if only the owner is not known then a person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized could have given an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine In the instant case according to the respondent himself the owner was Karimuddin as he had acted on behalf of Karimuddin. The question of the Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 125 of the Customs Act and remit the matter to give an option to the respondent herein to redeem the goods was clearly without jurisdiction. - impugned order is set aside

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 125 of the Customs Act for redemption of goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for fixing the redemption fine for confiscated goods. The Tribunal had set aside the order of confiscation and allowed the respondent, who claimed to be the carrier of the gold on behalf of another individual, to redeem the goods. The key legal provision in question was Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, which allows the Officer adjudging confiscation to give the owner or possessor of the goods an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The provision specifies that if the owner is not known, the person from whose possession the goods were seized can be given this option.

The Court noted that in this case, the respondent himself acknowledged that the owner of the goods was another individual. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to exercise jurisdiction under Section 125 and allow redemption of the goods by the respondent was deemed to be without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the specific requirement that the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation is to be given to the owner or the person from whose possession the goods were seized, if the owner is unknown. Since the respondent was not the owner but merely the carrier, the Tribunal's action was held to be legally incorrect.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and upheld the original order of confiscation by the Commissioner. The judgment made it clear that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by allowing the respondent to redeem the goods when the legal provision clearly mandated that such an option should be given to the owner or the possessor from whom the goods were seized. The Court's decision confirmed the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and ensuring that the legal framework is followed correctly in matters of confiscation and redemption of goods under the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petitioner's plea, set aside the Tribunal's order, and confirmed the Commissioner's decision regarding the confiscation of the goods. The judgment clarified the scope of jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Customs Act and underscored the significance of correctly applying the legal provisions governing the redemption of confiscated goods. The ruling emphasized the necessity of adhering to the statutory framework and ensuring that the proper legal procedures are followed in such matters to uphold the integrity of the law.