2012 (9) TMI 387 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of smuggled goods - electronics goods of foreign original purchased by the petitioner and Aslam Noor Mohammed - Held that - As the discrepancy in goods noticed by the adjudicating authority is common to the case of the petitioner and Aslam Noor Mohammed and they are not separable and as in the case of Aslam it is held by the Tribunal that on the basis of some discrepancies in the goods and the customs receipts, it cannot be inferred that the goods in question are smuggled goods & the said order of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court, thus the decision holding that the goods purchased by the petitioner are smuggled goods cannot be sustained - The respondents shall cancel the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner and return the same to the petitioner. The amount of Rs.2,74,340/- deposited by the petitioner shall also be returned to the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order in original dated 17th September, 1998 and order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 30th October, 1998.

Analysis:
1. The petition was filed to challenge the orders dated 17th September, 1998, and 30th October, 1998, related to the confiscation of electronics goods believed to be smuggled. The goods were purchased by the petitioner and another individual, who claimed they were duty paid goods brought into India by passengers at Trivandrum Airport. The assessing officer confiscated the goods due to discrepancies in the goods and customs receipts, offering redemption on payment of fines and penalties.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the penalties imposed on the petitioner but deferred the decision regarding the other individual's case pending before the Court. The petitioner challenged this order through a Writ Petition, which was admitted in December 1998. The Court allowed the petitioner to redeem the goods by paying a specified amount and furnishing a bank guarantee, which was duly done.

3. Subsequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders related to the other individual's case, which was also upheld by the Court. Considering the common discrepancies in goods for both individuals, the Court concluded that the decision to treat the goods purchased by the petitioner as smuggled goods was not sustainable. Therefore, the Court quashed the original order and the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) concerning the petitioner.

4. As a result, the Court made the Rule absolute, directing the respondents to cancel the bank guarantee, return it to the petitioner, and refund the deposited amount with interest. The judgment disposed of the petition with no costs imposed on either party.