2021 (4) TMI 646 - HC - Customs

Attachment of petitioner's Bank accounts - import of Brass Scrap(Melon) from Maldives - re-export of goods allowed or not - selling of goods allowed or not - HELD THAT - As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even while holding that the goods are liable for confiscation for the very same breath, the assessing authority had held that the goods can be reexported - Therefore, no final order of confiscation has been passed so far. It is not as if the import of the goods is totally prohibited. They would only come under the restricted category. Therefore, the goods can be sold to someone who is authorised to take the goods. Therefore, by selling the goods in question to someone who is authorised to take the same, the Government will definitely be getting some revenue. I do not understand as to why, such a course of action is not being adopted. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to sell the petition mentioned goods and appropriate the sale proceeds against the petitioner's liability. If the goods in question fetch more amount than the petitioner's liability, then after due adjustment, the balance amount will have to be paid to the petitioner and the attachment of the bank account will be raised - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of Brass Scrap(Melon) from Maldives without clearance from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
2. Confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, and failure to re-export the goods.
3. Attachment of petitioner's bank account by the customs department.
4. Request for sale of goods and raising the attachment of the bank account.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported Brass Scrap(Melon) from Maldives without clearance from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The customs department contended that the goods were not freely importable and ordered their confiscation. The Assistant Commissioner permitted re-export at the petitioner's cost and imposed a penalty of &8377; 4,82,160, which the petitioner did not fully pay, leading to the attachment of the bank account.

2. The department's stand was that the goods were not importable, and the petitioner could not compel the department to sell the goods to recover the penalty. However, the assessing authority had allowed re-export of the goods, indicating no final confiscation order had been issued. The goods were under restricted import category, not totally prohibited, and could be sold to an authorized party.

3. The petitioner invoked Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows recovery of sums due to the government by selling detained goods. The court directed the department to sell the goods and adjust the proceeds against the petitioner's liability. If the sales exceed the liability, the surplus goes to the petitioner, and the bank account attachment is lifted. If the proceeds are insufficient, the attachment remains until the liability is cleared.

4. The court granted the prayer for sale of goods and ordered the department to complete the sale within four months. The second petition for raising the bank account attachment was disposed of accordingly. The judgment emphasized the government's revenue recovery through selling the goods and the petitioner's obligation to clear the liability for the attachment to be lifted.