9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the confiscation of the seized goods is in accordance with law. 2. If the confiscation is not lawful and the goods are sold, whether the appellant is entitled to the seizure value of the goods. 3. Whether the imposition of penalty on the appellants is in accordance with law. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the confiscation of the seized goods is in accordance with law. The core issue revolves around the legality of confiscating goods seized from Smt. Shyam Lata Sharma's possession. The appellants contended that the confiscation was illegal as the Show Cause Notice was issued after the statutory period of six months prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned SDR argued that since the goods were available for confiscation at the time of adjudication, the adjudicating officer could order their confiscation, emphasizing that Section 110 and Section 124 are independent and there is no time limit for initiating adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal noted that Section 110(2) mandates that if a show cause notice is not issued within six months of seizure, the goods "shall be returned" to the person from whom they were seized, unless the period is extended by the Collector of Customs. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Charandas Malhotra's case, which underscored that the right to restoration of seized goods is a civil right accruing after six months unless extended. The Tribunal held that the failure to return the goods after six months without a valid extension renders any subsequent confiscation illegal. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods in this case was not in accordance with law, and the goods should be returned to Smt. Shyam Lata Sharma. Issue 2: If the confiscation is not lawful and the goods are sold, whether the appellant is entitled to the seizure value of the goods. The appellants sought the seizure value of the goods if they had been sold by the department. The learned SDR contended there was no provision in the Act for payment of sale proceeds or seizure value. The Tribunal, however, held that if the goods were sold by the department, the appellant should not suffer due to the department's actions. Justice and good conscience required that the respondent pay the seizure value of Rs. 2,87,341.00 to the appellant if the goods were sold. Issue 3: Whether the imposition of penalty on the appellants is in accordance with law. The Tribunal affirmed that the imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act was valid, even though the show cause notice was issued after six months. The goods were seized from Smt. Shyam Lata Sharma's possession, and they were notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, shifting the burden of proof to the appellants to demonstrate that the goods were legally imported, which they failed to do. The Tribunal noted that the penalties imposed were influenced by the fact that the goods were confiscated, and if the goods were to be returned, the appellants would benefit from a lighter penalty. However, the department had not filed any cross-objection for enhancement of the penalty, and thus, the penalties imposed were upheld. Conclusion: The appeal filed by Smt. Shyam Lata Sharma was partly allowed, directing the return of the seized goods or payment of their seizure value if sold. The appeals regarding the imposition of penalties on Narayan Sharma and M.M. Shastri were dismissed.
|
