2016 (6) TMI 189 - CGOVT - Customs

Rejection of Revision Application Due to Time Bar, Confiscation Upheld

Mr. Abdul Kareem Versus Commissioner of Customs, Manglore,

Mr. Abdul Kareem Versus Commissioner of Customs, Manglore, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of Cigarettes under Customs Act, 1962.2. Penalty Imposition under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962.3. Legality of Statements Recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962.4. Applicability of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008.5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Revision Application.Detailed Analysis:1. Confiscation of Cigarettes under Customs Act, 1962:The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a parcel containing 246 cartons of Davidoff brand cigarettes at Mangalore Central Railway Station. The cigarettes were found without statutory pictorial health warnings and were seized under the belief that they had been smuggled into India in contravention of the Customs Act, 1962. The investigation revealed that the consignment was booked by Abdul Kareem, who admitted in his statement that the cigarettes were imported from Dubai without declaring them to Customs and without paying any duty. Consequently, the Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the cigarettes under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008.2. Penalty Imposition under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962:The Additional Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on Abdul Kareem under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for his involvement in the illegal importation and transportation of the cigarettes. The penalty was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), who found sufficient evidence to support the confiscation and penalty.3. Legality of Statements Recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962:Abdul Kareem contended that his statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were obtained forcibly and should not be considered as confessional statements. He argued that the statements were retracted and should not be relied upon. However, the authorities found no evidence to support the claim of coercion, and the statements were deemed voluntary and credible. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the findings, stating that the statements provided sufficient evidence of the smuggling activities.4. Applicability of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008:Abdul Kareem argued that the statutory health warning requirements under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008, were not applicable to him as he was not engaged in the production, supply, import, or distribution of cigarettes. However, the authorities found that the rules were applicable as the cigarettes were imported and intended for sale, thus violating the packaging and labelling requirements.5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Revision Application:Abdul Kareem filed a revision application under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a request for condonation of delay. The application was filed 134 days beyond the initial stipulated period of three months. The government noted that the Revisionary Authority is empowered to condone the delay only up to three months, provided sufficient cause is shown. In this case, the applicant attributed the delay to misplacing the order and subsequently going abroad. The government found the reasons insufficient and rejected the application as time-barred, citing the lack of jurisdiction to condone delays beyond three months as per Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant judicial precedents.Conclusion:The government rejected the revision application as time-barred without examining the merits of the case. The confiscation of the cigarettes and the penalty imposed on Abdul Kareem were upheld based on the evidence and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The statutory health warning requirements were deemed applicable, and the arguments against the applicability of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008, were dismissed.