1994 (4) TMI 199 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Confiscation of zinc ingots under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Requirement of no objection certificates for the release of seized goods.
4. Burden of proof regarding the origin of the goods.
5. Absolute confiscation versus redemption of confiscated goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Zinc Ingots under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:

The appeals challenge the absolute confiscation of zinc ingots by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation involved 730 pcs., 55 pcs., 490 pcs., and 242 pcs. of zinc ingots, respectively. The Appellant Manoj Metal Industries argued that these goods were not notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act, and thus, the burden of proving that they were smuggled lay with the department. The department contended that the goods were of foreign origin and that the consignors and consignees' names were fictitious, implying smuggling. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, stating that the department had discharged its initial burden by showing the fictitious nature of the consignors and consignees and the inability of the appellants to correlate the goods with MMTC's invoices.

2. Imposition of Penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:

Penalties were imposed on Manoj Metal Industries (Rs. 3 lakhs) and Inland Road Service (Rs. 25,000). The Tribunal found that the penalty on Manoj Metal Industries was imposed without considering the market value of the goods and without providing reasons. The penalty on Inland Road Service was set aside as they were mere transporters without knowledge that the goods were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal emphasized that for imposing penalties under Section 112, it must be proven that the transporter had knowledge of the goods being liable for confiscation, which was not established in this case.

3. Requirement of No Objection Certificates for the Release of Seized Goods:

The Collector had ordered the release of certain zinc ingots to Manoj Metal Industries on the condition of producing no objection certificates from the transport companies. The Tribunal found this condition unwarranted as the transport companies did not claim ownership of the goods. Therefore, the seized goods should be released unconditionally to the appellants.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Origin of the Goods:

The Appellant argued that the burden of proof was on the department to show that the goods were smuggled. The Tribunal noted that the department had provided sufficient evidence by showing that the names of consignors and consignees were fictitious and that the goods could not be correlated with MMTC's invoices. Thus, the burden shifted to the appellants to prove the legal import of the goods, which they failed to do.

5. Absolute Confiscation Versus Redemption of Confiscated Goods:

The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the adjudicating officer did not consider allowing the appellants to redeem the confiscated goods by paying a redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hargovind Dass K. Joshi v. Collector of Customs, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Additional Collector to decide whether to allow redemption of the goods by imposing a suitable redemption fine and to reassess the penalty considering the market value of the goods.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of zinc ingots but remanded the case to the Additional Collector for reconsideration of the option to redeem the goods by paying a redemption fine and reassessment of penalties. The penalty on Inland Road Service was set aside due to lack of evidence of their knowledge of the goods being liable for confiscation. The condition of producing no objection certificates for the release of seized goods was also removed.