9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d later by the customs authorities, from the custody of the income-tax authorities, on 18-1-1975. 2. According to the assessee, however, the said assets were ultimately confiscated by the Collector of Customs vide order dated 29-6-1978 and this confiscation, according to him, would relate back to the date of the seizure and so it will have to be presumed as if the assessee did not own the said assets from 17-1-1975. 3. As the entire controversy in the present case has turned on the interpretation of the various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, it will be convenient to note down the various provisions of the Customs Act, on the interpretation of which the present controversy has to be resolved. 4. Under section 110 of the aforesaid A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) The officer adjudging confiscation shall take and hold possession of the confiscated goods." Section 128 of the Customs Act provides for appeals, etc., against the aforesaid orders of confiscation. 5. In the setting of the aforesaid provisions of the Customs Act, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was that once the confiscation order is passed, the goods which in fact were all along lying with the customs authorities remained with them forever and that the passing of the confiscation order merely formalises the transfer of ownership of the assets in question from the assessee to the Government but that possession which is, according to the learned counsel, 9/10 of the ownership was already with the Government from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had not appealed against the seizure of the gold bars and so the order of the confiscation passed by the Collector of Customs in this regard was final but the assessee had appealed against the confiscation of the gold coins and the said appeal was still pending. 9. We have carefully examined the rival submissions in the light of the various provisions of the Customs Act enumerated above. According to us, there is merit in the departmental stand that the mere seizure of the goods alleged to be contraband and liable to be confiscated in terms of section 111, does not extinguish the ownership of the assessee in the seized assets. There is also no merit in the assessee's stand that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as, therefore, no question of confirming the confiscation with effect from 18-1-1975 as urged by the assessee's learned counsel as there was no confiscation on that date which needed ex post facto sanction. The doctrine of relating back which had been canvassed by the learned counsel for the assessee would be relevant only if the statute is silent on the issue. In the present case, as noted above, the statute is eloquent on this issue and makes the two acts, namely, of seizure and of confiscation, distinct and the goods get confiscated only on the date when the adjudication order is passed and not prior to it and that is why, on the date of the confiscation, the goods passed from the custody of the executive branch of the customs to the cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of March, 1947. Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the aforesaid Ordinance gave to the custodian the power to sell any evacuee property. It was after considering the above and the other provisions of the Ordinance that their Lordships came to the conclusion that the assessee in that case merely had some beneficial interest in that property and that even though that residual interest, in a sense, was ownership, the legal owner of the said property nevertheless was the custodian. At page 574 of the report their Lordships observed that 'in the eye of the law, the custodian was the owner of that property, the position of the custodian was no less than that of a trustee'. 11. In view of the above position, it is difficult to say as to how the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value (sic) of shares. Such claim was pending before the State Government for disposal. No final order has yet been passed on such claim. The right entitled (sic) to the shares belonging to the assessee had not been totally denied. Hence, the WTO was right in assessing the value of such shares on the basis of last assessment." 14. The finding of the learned Commissioner is, in our opinion, erroneous. It is true that the claim of the assessee, that the value of the shares is nil, cannot be sustained because the assessee has claimed compensation from the Government of West Bengal for the said shares, but at the same time it cannot be said that the value of the said shares would be the same as the value of the shares in the last year. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
