1992 (12) TMI 158 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Validity of oral contract and ownership of goods.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act:
The primary issue is whether the confiscation of the goods imported into India is lawful. The goods were seized and ordered for absolute confiscation by the Additional Collector of Customs as they were found to be dutiable and restricted, with no valid claims over them. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, which states that any goods imported or attempted to be imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by law are liable for confiscation. The appellants failed to produce a valid import license or any valid contract for the import, thus justifying the confiscation.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that their letter dated 20-12-1991 was not considered by the adjudicating authority, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the letter was received by the Additional Collector of Customs. The address on the letter was vague, and no proof of dispatch or acknowledgment was provided. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of natural justice as the letter was not proven to be received by the concerned authority.

3. Validity of Oral Contract and Ownership of Goods:
The appellants claimed that the goods were shipped based on an oral contract, which was not substantiated by any written confirmation. Both M/s. Uni Impex Corporation and M/s. Dad's Finance & Trading Co. denied placing any orders or having any interest in the goods. The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide any evidence of a verbal contract, and the alleged importers disowned any such contract. The plea of sending goods on trust without any valid documents or L/C was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal held that the appellants' claim of ownership based on an oral contract was not substantiated.

4. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar:
The appellants relied heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, arguing that as the owner, they should be allowed to re-export the goods. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from the Supreme Court case. In Sampat Raj Dugar, the import was covered by a valid license, and the importer had claimed the goods. In contrast, in the present case, there was no valid license, and the importers denied any contract. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision was confined to situations where the import was not contrary to law, which was not applicable here.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, finding no valid import license or contract, and determining that the import was contrary to law. The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merits, and no option for re-export or redemption was granted due to the conduct of the appellants and the lack of valid documentation.