2013 (8) TMI 579 - AT - Customs

Commissioner's decision overturned, absolute confiscation not justified. Goods to be returned, sale proceeds refunded.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV), MUMBAI Versus MANOJ B GUPTA

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, ruling that absolute confiscation was not justified as the goods were not listed under section 123 and ... Confiscation of Goods – department contended that the goods were of foreign origin and assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence showing licit purchase/possession of the goods – Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) was right in setting aside the order of confiscation and directing the Revenue to return the goods to the assessee - the goods were not notified u/s 123 and the provisions of Chapter IVA relating to notified goods had been deleted from the Customs Act more than a decade back - the Customs cannot absolutely confiscate the goods at all - as the goods had already been disposed of the Revenue was directed to refund the sale proceeds of the goods to the assessee – decided against the revenue. Issues:1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal no. 100/2002-AP TS dated 01/07/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai.2. Confiscation of goods of foreign origin without proper documentation.Analysis:Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai. The Commissioner had held that since the goods were not notified under section 123 and Chapter IVA had been deleted from the Customs Act, the goods were not liable to absolute confiscation. The appeal was allowed in favor of the respondent.Issue 2: The main ground for appeal was that the goods were of foreign origin, as indicated by markings, and the respondent failed to provide documentary evidence of legitimate purchase or possession, making the goods liable for confiscation. The respondent, Shri Manoj Gupta, claimed ownership of the goods seized by presenting tax invoices and railway receipts for transporting the goods from Chennai to Mumbai. However, he did not retain copies of these documents. Despite his efforts to prove ownership, the goods were disposed of by Customs authorities.Judgment: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that since the goods were not notified under section 123 and Chapter IVA had been removed from the Customs Act, absolute confiscation was not possible. Therefore, the order of confiscation was set aside, and the Revenue was directed to return the goods to Shri Manoj Gupta. As the goods had already been disposed of, the Revenue was further directed to refund the sale proceeds to Shri Manoj Gupta without any delay. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.