1987 (11) TMI 216 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Goods under Customs Act | Import Regulations

AZEEZ KHAN AND OTHERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

AZEEZ KHAN AND OTHERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Confiscation of notified and non-notified goods under Customs Act, 1962.2. Liability for penalty on the appellants.3. Compliance with Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975.4. Applicability of Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Release of goods on payment of fine.Analysis:Issue 1: Confiscation of notified and non-notified goods under Customs Act, 1962The judgment deals with the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 37,076 and Rs. 6,550 under Sections 111(d) and (p) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The appellants were found in possession of foreign origin goods, and the question was whether these goods were liable for confiscation under the Act. The Tribunal held that the goods, both notified and non-notified, were liable for confiscation due to violations of import regulations and conditions of exemption. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and upheld the order of confiscation.Issue 2: Liability for penalty on the appellantsThe appellants were also subjected to penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that they were not in violation of any laws and should not be penalized. However, the Tribunal found the appellants' actions to be in breach of import regulations and conditions of clearance. The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed on the appellants were legally justified, considering the nature of the violations committed.Issue 3: Compliance with Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975The judgment discussed the importance of adherence to the Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975, which regulate the clearance and sale of goods brought in as passenger baggage. The Tribunal highlighted that failure to comply with these rules could lead to confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that even goods cleared under baggage could be confiscated if the conditions of exemption were violated.Issue 4: Applicability of Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to the confiscation of goods. It was held that goods cleared under baggage but in violation of import regulations could still be liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) if the conditions of exemption were not met. The judgment clarified that any breach of import regulations, whether complete or partial, could result in confiscation under the Act.Issue 5: Release of goods on payment of fineThe Tribunal considered the release of goods on payment of a fine, especially for goods that had already undergone duty payment and were cleared under baggage. The judgment allowed for the release of certain goods on payment of a fine equal to 50% of the value of each item. For non-notified goods covered by baggage receipts, the Tribunal directed their release on payment of duty and a fine. The Tribunal also reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants based on the circumstances of the case.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods, penalties on the appellants, and stressed the importance of compliance with import regulations and conditions of exemption. The judgment provided for the release of certain goods on payment of fines and highlighted the consequences of non-compliance with statutory provisions.