2001 (8) TMI 113 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court Upholds Confiscation & Fine Decision

COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI Versus JAGDISH CANCER & RESEARCH CENTRE

COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI Versus JAGDISH CANCER & RESEARCH CENTRE - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (SC), 2001 AIR 3161, 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 245, 2001 (6) SCC ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.2. Compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988.3. Confiscation of the imported equipment.4. Imposition of customs duty and penalty.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs:The Centre raised an objection that the show cause notice was not issued by the 'competent officer' and was beyond the time limit specified under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The Adjudicating Authority and the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) found that the notice was not issued by the proper officer and was time-barred. However, it was argued that the notice did not mention Section 28(1) and was related to confiscation under Section 124 and 125 of the Customs Act, which do not pertain to the imposition or demand of customs duty. The Supreme Court held that the liability to pay duty arises under Section 125(2) in addition to the fine under Section 125(1), and therefore, Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was not attracted.2. Compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988:The Centre was required to comply with conditions specified in the notification, including providing free treatment to at least 40% of outdoor patients and reserving 10% of hospital beds for indoor patients from families with an income of less than Rs. 500 per month. The Centre argued that it had been providing free treatment, with only marginal shortfalls, and that it was not required to submit an installation certificate as it was a running hospital. The Supreme Court found that the Centre did not have inpatient facilities and the arrangement with another hospital for reserving 10% of beds did not meet the notification's requirements. The Centre failed to comply with the conditions for providing free treatment as required by the notification.3. Confiscation of the imported equipment:The Department seized the imported equipment due to non-compliance with the notification's conditions. The Adjudicating Authority ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine. The CEGAT held that the confiscation was based on the non-submission of the installation certificate and could not be extended to other grounds. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the notice should be read as a whole and found that the confiscation was intended for violation of various conditions of the notification.4. Imposition of customs duty and penalty:The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty and demanded customs duty, which the CEGAT upheld but found unenforceable due to the invalid show cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the liability to pay duty arises under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act in addition to the fine under Section 125(1) and does not attract Section 28(1). Therefore, the demand for customs duty and the penalty were valid.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the CEGAT's order and restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, which included the confiscation of the imported equipment, imposition of a fine, and the demand for customs duty. The Centre failed to comply with the conditions of the notification and the objections regarding the show cause notice were not sustained. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.