TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a person other than the statutory owner under the customs law was entitled to notice and hearing before confiscation could be ordered and before a penalty could be imposed on him as a person concerned in the offence; (ii) Whether the owner was entitled, as of right, to an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under the customs law in cases governed by import control restrictions.
Issue (i): Whether a person other than the statutory owner under the customs law was entitled to notice and hearing before confiscation could be ordered and before a penalty could be imposed on him as a person concerned in the offence.
Analysis: For confiscation, the customs authority was entitled to proceed against the person who filled in the bill of entry or shipping bill and made the statutory declaration as the owner recognised by the Act. No duty was cast on the authority to search for every person who might have an indirect interest in the goods. However, a penalty imposed on a person merely because he was concerned in the offence stood on a different footing. Such a penalty could not be levied without giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as the principles of natural justice require notice before punishment.
Conclusion: The confiscation order was not invalid for want of notice to the petitioner, but the penalty imposed on the petitioner without notice or hearing was unsustainable and had to be set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the owner was entitled, as of right, to an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under the customs law in cases governed by import control restrictions.
Analysis: The statutory requirement to offer an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation was made subject to the import-control regime, under which the corresponding word in the customs provision stood altered from mandatory to permissive language. In prohibited-import cases, the adjudging authority was therefore not bound to grant the option, but could do so in its discretion. On the facts, the statutory option was not enforceable as a matter of right.
Conclusion: No mandatory right to redeem the goods by payment of fine existed in the circumstances, and the confiscation order could not be challenged on that ground.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of striking down the personal penalty, while the confiscation of the goods was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under customs adjudication cannot be imposed on a person concerned in the offence without notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard, but the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is not mandatory where the governing import-control law makes that option discretionary.
TaxTMI 
