2023 (8) TMI 1161 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of truck carrying goods and penalty set aside - goods were provisionally released against the Security Deposit - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the Appellant and also set aside the confiscation of the truck. Against this OIA, the Department has not filed any Appeal. Hence, the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) remain unchallenged and are final as on date. Therefore, in this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have also ordered for release of security deposit of Rs. 2 Lakhs which was deposited by the Late Shri Ishwar Chand Gupta, towards provisional release of the consignment. The Department cannot retain this amount. The Appellant s successor would be eligible to get the refund of security deposit of Rs. 2 Lakhs. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty imposition, release of security deposit, successorship claim.

Confiscation and Penalty Imposition: The case involved the interception of a truck carrying prohibited Red sanders wood by Nepali Customs authorities, leading to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposition of penalties. The Adjudicating Authority held the truck liable for confiscation and imposed penalties on the Appellant. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties and confiscation, ruling that the Department failed to prove malafide intention or mens-rea on the part of the Appellants. The Commissioner found that the Department did not conduct a proper follow-up investigation and did not establish any illegal activities conclusively. As a result, the penalties imposed on the Appellants were set aside, and the confiscation of the truck was also annulled.

Release of Security Deposit: The Appellant, as the proprietor of the company, had provisionally released goods against a security deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs. After the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties and confiscation, it was held that the Appellant was entitled to the refund of the security deposit. The Department did not appeal against this decision, making the Commissioner's order final. The Tribunal affirmed that the Appellant's successor, after the Appellant's demise, was eligible to claim the refund of the security deposit.

Successorship Claim: Following the demise of the Appellant, his son filed a letter along with the Death Certificate, asserting himself as the successor. The Tribunal acknowledged the successor's claim to the refund but directed the Adjudicating Authority to verify the successorship claim made by the Appellant's son. The Tribunal concluded that the Department could not withhold the security deposit, and the Appellant's successor was entitled to the refund.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the Appeal by affirming the entitlement of the Appellant's successor to claim the refund of the security deposit, subject to verification by the Adjudicating Authority.