1994 (9) TMI 214 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
3. Legal implications of the appellant's death during the appeal process.

Seizure and Confiscation of Goods:
The case involved the arrival of a group of Indian Nationals from Iraq/Kuwait at a Land Customs Station. A jewellery box made of gold was found concealed in a car brought by one of the group members. The Customs Officer seized the car and the gold box under Sections 110, 111, and 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the failure to provide evidence for the legal import of the items. The Additional Collector, after considering statements and evidence, concluded that the car belonged to the group leader and the gold box was not declared before Customs. The Collector ordered the confiscation of the car and the gold box under relevant sections of the Customs Act, along with imposing a personal penalty on the appellant and another individual involved.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant challenged the imposition of the penalty through an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was justified based on the evidence and the statement of a co-accused. It was emphasized that penalty generally dies with the deceased, and it cannot be imposed or recovered from legal heirs after the death of the concerned person. However, in this case, the penalty was imposed and paid during the appellant's lifetime. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order imposing the penalty and dismissed the appeal, stating that the penalty was justified and had already been paid by the appellant before his death.

Legal Implications of Appellant's Death:
During the appeal process, the appellant passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record. The Tribunal considered the submission made by the legal heir, arguing that the appellant was falsely implicated based on a retracted statement of a co-accused. However, the Tribunal held that the imposition of the penalty was justified based on the evidence and the statement of the co-accused. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal proceedings could not be continued by the legal representatives of the deceased in criminal cases after the death of the accused, as the right to file an appeal accrues when the rights are affected. Despite doubts on the continuation of the appeal by legal representatives, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the penalty had been imposed and paid during the appellant's lifetime, and therefore, the question of refund did not arise.