9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Early hearing of appeals for clearance of diplomatic cargo. 2. Maintainability of appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Ownership of goods supplied to diplomats and entitlement to file appeals. Analysis: Issue 1: Early Hearing of Appeals The appellants filed a miscellaneous application seeking early hearing of appeals related to the clearance of diplomatic cargo. The consignments sent by the appellants were found to contain excessive goods beyond the invoice and order placed by the diplomats. Despite requests for re-export of the excessive items, the adjudicating authority passed an order of absolute confiscation without issuing a Show Cause Notice or providing an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal allowed the application for early hearing, considering the prolonged detention of goods since 1991, and scheduled the appeals for hearing on 22nd April 1994. Issue 2: Maintainability of Appeals A preliminary issue arose regarding the maintainability of the appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, questioning whether the appellants were "persons aggrieved." The appellants claimed ownership of the goods supplied to the diplomats as payment had not been received, and the goods were supplied on a consignment basis. Citing the decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, the Tribunal held that an exporter remains the owner of goods until payment is received, allowing the exporter to request re-export unless involved in fraud or payment is guaranteed. The Tribunal found the appellants to be "persons aggrieved" and entitled to file appeals before the Tribunal. Issue 3: Ownership of Goods and Entitlement to File Appeals The Tribunal noted that the decision in the Sampat Raj Dugar case had been followed in previous judgments, emphasizing the principle that an exporter retains ownership of goods until payment is received. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' claim that the goods were supplied on a consignment basis and that payment was to be made after receipt by the consignees. This assertion, coupled with the absence of denial from the Department, supported the appellants' status as "persons aggrieved" under Section 129A. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals for early hearing reflected the recognition of the appellants' ownership rights and entitlement to seek redress through the appeals process. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of early hearing, maintainability of appeals, and ownership rights of goods, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions rendered by the Tribunal.
|
