1999 (11) TMI 254 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of birds and trucks by Commissioner of Customs
- Imposition of penalties on the appellants
- Legality of the impugned order
- Validity of the route taken for export of birds to Nepal
- Lack of ban on export of birds through Barhni route
- Reference to Notification No. 63/94 regarding permissible routes

Confiscation of Birds and Trucks:
The judgment pertains to seven appeals arising from a common order-in-original by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, confiscating 1250 ducks and 545 titars, along with trucks, and imposing penalties on the appellants. The birds were found in trucks near the Railway Station Barhni, with appellants admitting to carrying them to Nepal due to Customs restrictions. The Commissioner's order was based on violations of Customs Act sections and Foreign Trade Act. The appellants claimed innocence, stating the birds were meant for delivery to another party and that they sought permission for export. Despite personal hearings, the Commissioner ordered confiscation and penalties.

Legality of the Impugned Order:
The appellants challenged the order before the Tribunal, arguing that no ban on bird export existed through trucks to Nepal, citing Notification No. 63/94 permitting the route taken. The Counsel contended that the Commissioner's order lacked legal basis due to the absence of any notification prohibiting bird export through the Barhni route. The JDR failed to counter this argument or present evidence of a ban. As the route was authorized and no ban was in place, the confiscation of birds and trucks was deemed illegal by the Tribunal.

Validity of the Route for Export:
The Tribunal found that the route used by the appellants for bird export to Nepal was lawful, as per Notification No. 63/94, which designated the Barhni route as permissible for goods import and export by land. The Commissioner's failure to consider this notification led to an unjust confiscation of birds and trucks. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants did not engage in any illegal activity by exporting birds through the authorized Barhni route.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellants due to the lack of a ban on bird export through the Barhni route and the validity of the route as per Notification No. 63/94. The order for confiscation of birds and trucks, as well as the imposed penalties, were deemed legally unsustainable. Consequently, the appeals of the appellants were accepted, providing them with consequential relief.