9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of non-alloy steel coils/circles under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 for concealing smuggled goods. Analysis: The Commissioner confiscated non-alloy steel coils/circles valued at Rs. 3,55,005.00 under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging their use for concealing smuggled silk yarn. The appellants were given the option to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The Advocate for the appellants argued that the goods were booked for stock-transfer and had no connection to the seized silk yarn. He emphasized the lack of evidence implicating the appellants in smuggling activities, as acknowledged by the Commissioner. Regarding the goods in question, it was highlighted that the driver's statement indicated that the smuggled silk yarn was covered by the coils/circles, not concealed. Reference was made to legal precedents distinguishing between "coverage" and "concealment" for the application of Section 119. The Revenue's representative contended that knowledge of concealment was irrelevant under Section 119, as it is an offense "in rem" rather than "in personam." The Commissioner's decision to confiscate the goods with a redemption option was supported. Upon review, the Judge noted that for confiscation under Section 119, goods must be used for concealing smuggled goods. The distinction between "concealment" and "covering" was crucial, as mere coverage did not warrant confiscation under Section 119. Additionally, the lack of nexus between the owners of the coils and the smuggled goods was a significant factor. Citing legal precedents, the Judge found that confiscation without the owner's involvement in concealing goods was not justifiable. Consequently, the impugned order confiscating the non-alloy steel coils/circles was set aside, and the appeal by the appellants was allowed with consequential relief.
|
