1995 (5) TMI 117 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of contraband goods in a post parcel.
2. Confiscation of semi-precious stones of foreign origin.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the Govt. of India.
5. Validity of inculpatory statement.
6. Licit acquisition of goods of foreign origin.
7. Redemption of goods on payment of a fine.
8. Modification of order of absolute confiscation.

Issue 1: Seizure of contraband goods in a post parcel
The customs authorities seized a post parcel containing 158 semi-precious stones of foreign origin from the appellant's office. The goods were valued at Rs. 16,325. The appellant was subjected to proceedings leading to absolute confiscation of the goods and imposition of a penalty by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise & Customs.

Issue 2: Confiscation of semi-precious stones of foreign origin
The appellant challenged the order of adjudication, leading to a series of appeals and revisions. The Central Board remanded the matter on grounds of violation of natural justice. The Govt. of India confirmed the order, prompting the appellant to file a writ petition before the High Court of Madras challenging the jurisdiction. The High Court directed the Govt. of India to forward the case to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal.

Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice
The appellant argued that the inculpatory statement made during the seizure was not voluntary and true, as it was retracted later. The appellant contended that absolute confiscation of the goods was unwarranted and requested an opportunity to redeem the goods on payment of a fine.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction and authority of the Govt. of India
The High Court directed the Govt. of India to transmit the case papers to the Appellate Tribunal, which was delayed due to misplaced records. The Tribunal eventually received the records and listed the appeal for hearing.

Issue 5: Validity of inculpatory statement
The appellant admitted ownership and possession of the seized goods but disputed their foreign origin. The Tribunal analyzed the voluntariness of the inculpatory statement and found it acceptable, holding the goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.

Issue 6: Licit acquisition of goods of foreign origin
The Tribunal determined that since the goods were proven to be of foreign origin and the appellant failed to prove licit acquisition, the goods were subject to confiscation under the relevant policy.

Issue 7: Redemption of goods on payment of a fine
The appellant requested to redeem the goods on payment of a fine due to the prolonged legal battle and the insignificant value of the goods. The Tribunal modified the order of absolute confiscation, permitting the appellant to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 3,000 and reducing the penalty imposed.

Issue 8: Modification of order of absolute confiscation
Considering the lengthy legal process, the value and nature of the goods, and the current import regulations, the Tribunal modified the order of absolute confiscation. The Tribunal allowed redemption of the goods on payment of a fine and reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal was dismissed with the above modifications.