1994 (4) TMI 148 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of duty payment by power of attorney holders.
2. Interpretation of Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Application of case laws in determining liability for duty payment.
4. Ownership of imported goods and responsibility for duty payment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal contested the demand of duty by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) against the power of attorney holders who cleared imported goods. The appellants argued that duty could not be demanded from them as they were not the importers but acted as agents under Section 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that duty should first be sought from the original importers before holding them liable.

2. Section 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 states that an authorized agent shall be deemed to be the owner, importer, or exporter of goods for specified purposes. The appellants relied on this provision to argue that duty recovery should first target the original importers before proceeding against them as agents. They cited case laws to support their contention, emphasizing the need for the department to exhaust recovery options from the importers before pursuing agents.

3. The Department's stance was that the power of attorney holders became the owners of the goods after clearing them, thus assuming importer status for Customs Act proceedings. They highlighted the appellants' active involvement in correspondence with the Department, including extending bank guarantees and seeking duty waivers. The Department argued that the appellants' actions indicated ownership and responsibility for duty payment.

4. The Tribunal observed that the appellants effectively took over ownership of the imported goods through the power of attorney, enabling them to clear the goods and pay duty. The terms of the power of attorney vested rights in the appellants to deal with the goods and fulfill obligations related to clearance and payment. As the appellants acted as owners in dealings with Customs authorities, including seeking waivers and extending bank guarantees, they were deemed responsible for duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, dismissing the appeal based on the appellants' ownership and active involvement in the import process.