9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (3) TMI 24 - HC - CustomsEvasion of customs duty release of goods ownership - held that - The Petitioner seems to be only contending that with NIPL not claiming ownership of those goods the Commissioner of Customs is obliged to release the goods found in the said godown to the RPC. However that is not a correct understanding of the legal position. Unless the RPC is able to prima facie establish by proper documentation that the goods found in the godown A belong to it there is no obligation on the Commissioner of Customs in law to even provisionally release those goods to RPC. What RPC has produced is a bunch of documents claiming to be invoices for purchase of paper . Considering that what was seized in the godown is imported newsprint such invoice can hardly constitute even a prima facie evidence that the imported goods in fact belonged to RPC. Moreover RPC claims that it had stopped importing goods for the last seven years. RPC has not been able to satisfactorily explain even prima facie how these goods were found in its godown. Merely producing documents to establish that the godown is of RPC is not the same thing as showing that the goods found therein belong to RPC petition dismissed seeking a direction to the Respondents to release on an urgent basis with cost
Issues Involved:
1. Release of consignments by Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. (NIPL) and Pradeep Kumar (RPC). 2. Allegations of customs duty evasion and misdeclaration of imported goods. 3. Validity of the conditions imposed for provisional release of the seized goods. 4. Correlation of seized goods with import documents. 5. Ownership and rightful claimant of the seized goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Release of Consignments by NIPL and RPC: NIPL sought the release of consignments lying in two godowns in Delhi, while RPC requested the release of consignments from a godown it claimed ownership of. NIPL was involved in importing newsprint and other paper types for registered publishers, while RPC had ceased importing goods for seven years. 2. Allegations of Customs Duty Evasion and Misdeclaration: A show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Intelligence (DRI) on 22nd December 2006 alleged that certain importers were evading customs duty by misdeclaring the description and undervaluing imported goods. The intelligence indicated that the actual user condition specified in the ITC (HS) and Customs Notification No. 21/2002 was violated, with traders diverting goods to the local market instead of using them for printing newspapers and magazines. 3. Validity of Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release: The Commissioner of Customs directed the provisional release of goods subject to conditions: payment of differential duty, execution of a bank guarantee (25% of the seizure value), an indemnity bond (full seizure value), and an affidavit not to challenge the identity of the seized goods. The court found these conditions reasonable given the large-scale nature of the scam and the discretion vested in the Commissioner under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Correlation of Seized Goods with Import Documents: The court observed that while some correlation between the seized goods and import documents was established, there was no correlation concerning their value. The show cause notice alleged both misdescription and undervaluation of goods, and the court could not conclude that the goods were correctly valued at the time of clearance. Thus, the direction for payment of differential duty was justified. 5. Ownership and Rightful Claimant of Seized Goods: RPC failed to establish ownership of the goods found in the godown. The court noted that merely showing the godown belonged to RPC did not suffice to prove ownership of the seized goods. The invoices produced by RPC described the goods as "paper," which did not constitute prima facie evidence that the imported goods belonged to RPC. Additionally, RPC's claim that it had stopped importing goods for seven years further weakened its case. Conclusion: The court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the conditions imposed by the Commissioner of Customs for the provisional release of the goods. The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- each to be paid to the respondents within four weeks.
|
