9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under :- Two consignments of components of plain paper copier (xerox machines of Canon make of Japanese origin) were intercepted by the Officers of Central Excise on 29-2-1992 while being transported in a lorry and were seized by the officers. During the post seizure investigations, it transpired that the said consignment was imported by one M/s. Srivarda Telecopier, Gurgaon (Haryana). After the due process, the same was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, Calcutta who vide his Order-in-Original No. 228/Cus./CC/WB/93, dated 8-11-1993 confiscated the seized goods but with an option to the importers to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs plus duty calculated proportionately on components of ten sets. The option was to be exercised within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. The appellant did not challenge this order before the higher appellate authorities and accepted the same. From a perusal of the correspondence appearing on record, it appears that immediately on receipt of the said order, the appellant entered into correspondence with the Department for the release of the goods and appointed one Shri S.P. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor. The High Court also observed that it would be open to the authorities to consider the effect of Section 125 and 126 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also directed by the High Court that before coming to a final conclusion, Writ Petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing and to produce documents in support of her claim for release of the confiscated goods. The impugned order had been passed in pursuance of the above order of the High Court. Vide the impugned order dated 5-12-1996 claim of Smt. Ved Kumari to get the release of the confiscated goods had been rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) W.B. Calcutta. 4. Appearing on behalf of the appellant Shri D.C. Mandal, learned Consultant, after taking the Bench through the above facts submitted that the appellant did not challenge the original order of the Collector giving an option to the appellant for redeeming the goods on payment of redemption fine, duty and penalty. He submitted that the appellants accepted the order and deposited the quantum of fine, penalty and duty in terms of the above order on 4-2-1994. He further submitted that as the appellant firm was a proprietory firm at the relevant point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is erroneous. He submitted that the release of the goods had been delayed not because of any non-action or inaction on the part of the appellant but because of Customs Department and the appellants have been put to financial and undue hardships because of the delay and the ultimate refusal by the Commissioner to release the goods. 5. Appearing on behalf of the department Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR submitted that the directions of the High Court to give a personal hearing to the petitioners was duly complied with by the Commissioner inasmuch as a notice of hearing was sent to Smt. Ved Kumari as also to their advocate on record and it is not understood as to how the letters were not received by the said persons. He further submitted that though an option was given to the M/s. Varda Telecopiers to redeem the goods nevertheless before releasing the goods to Smt. Ved Kumari, it must be ensured whether she has legal entity to take the delivery of the goods or not. In the circumstances, he prayed for rejection of the appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have also gone through the written note dated 28-4-1997 submitted by the learned JDR. I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the passing of the order entered into correspondence with the appellant firm for release of the goods. After the death of the proprietor of the firm, the right of the firm to get the goods released on payment of fine, which was in fact deposited by the appellant firm in the year 1994, does not get extinguished. Smt. Ved Kumari, widow of Shri Dharampal is entitled to get the release of the goods. Shri Mandal has placed on record death certificate dated 18-9-1995 issued by Gurgaon Nagar Palika and the birth certificate of only child of Smt. Ved Kumari and late Shri Dharampal. In view of the number of evidence put on record, their remains no doubt that Smt. Ved Kumari, widow of late Shri Dharampal is entitled to the release of the goods. I order accordingly. 8. As regards the effect of Sections 125 and 126 of Customs Act, 1962 providing vesting of right of property in the Central Government on confiscation, I find that the said sections do not have any bearing on the issues involved in this case. Section 125 merely gives an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. No time limit has been laid down in the said section within which such option has to be exercised by the person to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
