Importer, Not Buyer, Liable for Duty Payment in Absence - High Court Decision

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay affirmed the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision that the duty on imported goods should be collected from the original importer, not the buyer, even if the importer is absconding. The Court held that the importer is primarily liable for duty payment, and provisions regarding the liability of the owner of confiscated goods cannot be used as a substitute. The Court dismissed the application without costs, agreeing with the Tribunal's interpretation of the law.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of liability for payment of duty on imported goods when the original importer is absconding.

Summary:
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered an application regarding the liability for payment of duty on imported goods when the original importer is absconding. The applicant sought the statement of facts from the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal for a decision on the issue. The question framed was whether the duty should be collected from the original importer or the buyer of the goods in such circumstances.

The Tribunal's order highlighted the provisions of Section 28 and Section 125(2) of the Act regarding the recovery of duty on imported goods and the liability of the owner of confiscated goods to pay duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer of goods is primarily liable to pay duty on the imported goods. The definition of 'imported' includes situations where goods are transferred to another person, making that person liable to pay duty. However, the provisions of Section 125(2) cannot be used as a substitute for Section 28, especially when the importer is known and a notice for duty recovery has been issued to them.

The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's view, stating that the question raised did not require further consideration. Consequently, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---