2018 (7) TMI 545 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods - Smuggling - silver bullion and ornaments - commercial quantities of mobile phones - original owner did not come forward to claim release of such goods - Held that - It has been claimed on behalf of the appellants that Shri Nand Kishore Singh has already submitted the consignment notes which are said to cover the payment of the seized goods. But the fact remains that neither the consignee nor the consignor has come forward and claimed the goods after satisfying the Customs Authority about the licit nature of the goods - goods cannot be released - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalties amounting to ?20.00 lacs each on the three appellants.
3. Provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Claim for release of goods by the three courier companies.
5. Identification of consignor and consignee of the goods.
6. Compliance with the High Court's order for provisional release of goods.
7. Submission of consignment notes by Shri Nand Kishore Singh.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved three appeals against Order-in-Original No.Cus/CC(P)/WB/2014 dated 15.12.2014, all disposed by a common order. The case originated from the interception of 20 packages at Howrah Railway Station containing foreign origin goods, including silver bullions, branded mobile phones, and chemicals. The goods were detained and subsequently seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The three courier service providers filed writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court, which ordered provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the goods were not released as they could only be released to the actual owners. Subsequently, after show cause notice and adjudication proceedings, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with penalties of ?20.00 lacs each imposed on the appellants. The appeals challenged the penalties and sought the release of the confiscated goods.

During the hearing, the advocate for the appellants argued that the courier companies were custodians of the goods and should be allowed to claim them. The Departmental Representative (DR) justified the impugned order, highlighting the presence of various goods, including silver bullions and consumer items, without identified consignors or consignees. The Customs Authorities seized the goods due to lack of proper documentation and indications of smuggling.

The High Court's order for provisional release could not be fulfilled as the original owners did not claim the goods. Although Shri Nand Kishore Singh submitted consignment notes, neither the consignee nor consignor came forward to claim the goods lawfully. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The judgment was pronounced on 04.05.2018.