1997 (5) TMI 210 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Orders Release of Confiscated Goods: Customs Act Clarification

VARDA TELECOPIER Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), CALCUTTA

VARDA TELECOPIER Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), CALCUTTA - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) Issues Involved: Early hearing of appeal, confiscation and redemption of imported goods, authorization for release of goods, compliance with High Court directions, applicability of Sections 125 and 126 of the Customs Act, 1962, and entitlement for release of goods post proprietor's death.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Early Hearing of Appeal:The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application for early hearing of their appeal due to the confiscation of imported goods and the delay in their release despite payment of redemption fine and customs duty. The application was allowed as there was no objection from the Departmental Representative, and the appeal was taken up for hearing.2. Confiscation and Redemption of Imported Goods:The case involved the interception and seizure of two consignments of Canon plain paper copier components by Central Excise officers. The Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, adjudicated the matter and ordered confiscation with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs plus duty. The appellant accepted this order and deposited the required amount but faced delays in the release of goods.3. Authorization for Release of Goods:The appellant appointed Shri S.P. Saxena as the authorized person to handle the release of goods. However, confusion arose regarding the authorized representative, leading to further delays. The Customs Department's correspondence indicated a lack of clarity on the authorized person, contributing to the delay.4. Compliance with High Court Directions:After the death of the firm's proprietor, Shri Dharampal, his widow, Smt. Ved Kumari, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court directed the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings for the release of the goods, allowing the petitioner to present documents and be heard. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) rejected her claim, citing insufficient documentation.5. Applicability of Sections 125 and 126 of the Customs Act, 1962:The appellant argued that the Commissioner wrongly invoked Section 126, which pertains to the vesting of confiscated goods in the government. The Commissioner contended that the goods were not redeemed within the stipulated period, making the confiscation absolute. The Tribunal clarified that Section 125 provides an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation without a specific time limit, and since the appellant deposited the money promptly, the goods should have been released. Section 126 applies only to absolute confiscation or non-exercise of the redemption option, which was not the case here.6. Entitlement for Release of Goods Post Proprietor's Death:The Tribunal found that the appellant firm had deposited the required amounts, and the delay in releasing the goods was due to the Customs Department's actions. Despite the firm's proprietor's death, his widow, Smt. Ved Kumari, was entitled to the release of the goods. The Tribunal ordered the release of the goods to her within 45 days, provided she presented herself in person to avoid further confusion.In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered the release of the confiscated goods to Smt. Ved Kumari, emphasizing that the delay was not due to the appellant's fault and that the provisions of Sections 125 and 126 did not justify the non-release of the goods.