2014 (10) TMI 712 - AT - Customs

Improper Release of Seized Goods Upheld

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR Versus MANJIT SINGH

The Tribunal found that the provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, to a party without evidence of ownership was ... Seizure of goods - import of restricted goods - Commissioner refused the provisional release of the goods seized by DRI to Shri Manjit Singh on the ground that M/s. KAM, M/s. Khyati and M/s. KM International are non-existent and the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh is not a bona fide owner of the goods - Held that:- Just by furnishing affidavits claiming to be the owner, the respondent does not become bona fide owner of the seized goods. We also take note of the fact that the Commissioner in his earlier order dated 29-10-2013 addressed to the Advocate, Shri Yogesh M. Rohira of the respondent had mentioned that the goods cannot be provisionally released to Shri Manjit Singh, as he is not the bona fide owner of the imported goods. Though in subsequent order dated 5-11-2017 the Commissioner reversing his earlier stand, has ordered provisional release to the respondent, he has not stated as to how he is satisfied that the respondent is the bona fide owner of the goods. Provisional release of the goods imported in the name of M/s. KAM Enterprises, M/s. Khyati Enterprises, M/s. K.M. International, M/s. Satyam Enterprises and M/s. Vaishali Enterprises has been ordered to the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh on the basis of the affidavits regarding ownership already submitted by him and the provisional release of the goods imported in the name of M/s. Aashavi Enterprises and M/s. Dhruv Enterprises has been ordered to the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh in the event of production of the necessary affidavits/authorization. When the importers are fictitious persons and the value of the goods has been grossly undeclared and the adjudication of the matter may result in huge duty demands, against the importers, releasing the goods on provisional basis to a person, who is not the owner of the goods would certainly jeopardize the interests of the Revenue, as, if provisional release is made and the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh vanishes with the goods and subsequently duty demands are confirmed, the department will neither have the goods nor the persons from whom the duty can be recovered. impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the law and in fact is a perverse order - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:Provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The appeal and stay application were filed by the Revenue concerning the provisional release of goods seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The imports involved various consumer goods in twelve containers, with investigations revealing under-declaration of assessable value and fictitious importers. The Commissioner initially refused provisional release to the respondent, stating the importers were non-existent. However, a subsequent order allowed provisional release subject to specified conditions. The Committee of Chief Commissioners reviewed this order and directed an appeal to the Tribunal, leading to the current proceedings.The key argument by the Revenue was that the respondent was not the bona fide owner of the goods due to fictitious importers and under-declared values. They contended that releasing the goods to the respondent would damage Revenue interests. The respondent's counsel argued that the Commissioner had the authority to order provisional release under Section 110A and had imposed sufficient conditions to protect Revenue interests.Upon review, the Tribunal found that provisional release under Section 110A can only be made to the owner of the goods, with prescribed security and conditions. Despite the respondent's claims, there was no evidence supporting his ownership. The Commissioner's reversal of the initial decision without clarifying the respondent's bona fide ownership was deemed improper. Additionally, releasing goods to a non-owner could seriously jeopardize Revenue interests, especially considering the significant duty demands that may arise due to under-declared values and fictitious importers.Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was contrary to the law and unsustainable. It was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal and stay application were allowed. The decision highlighted the importance of safeguarding Revenue interests when ordering provisional release of seized goods, especially in cases involving fictitious importers and significant duty implications.