Customs confiscation fails where outer containers are neither packages nor concealed goods under the statutory provisions.
Outer containers used to carry goods already packed in drums and gunny-covered packages were not themselves "packages" liable to confiscation under Customs law. The tribunal applied the ordinary meaning of package and held that the relevant packages were the goods-bearing drums and coverings, not the external containers, so confiscation under Section 118 was unsustainable. The goods were also not shown to be concealed or packed to obscure them from view, so Section 119 did not apply. Confiscation was therefore not justified on either ground and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Issues: (i) whether the four containers used for carrying the imported goods were "packages" liable to confiscation under the Customs law; (ii) whether the goods could be treated as "concealed" so as to attract confiscation.
Issue (i): whether the four containers used for carrying the imported goods were "packages" liable to confiscation under the Customs law.
Analysis: The goods were already packed in drums and gunny-covered packages. On the ordinary meaning of "package", the goods-bearing drums and packages constituted the relevant packages, while the outer containers in which those packages were kept did not themselves become packages. Confiscation of the containers on that footing was not supported by the provision dealing with packages liable to confiscation.
Conclusion: The containers were not "packages" for the purpose of confiscation under Section 118 and confiscation on that ground was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): whether the goods could be treated as "concealed" so as to attract confiscation.
Analysis: The record showed that the goods were packed in the usual manner and placed in containers. There was no material to show that they were hidden or packed with the object of obscuring them from view. The statutory provision dealing with concealed goods therefore had no application.
Conclusion: Section 119 did not apply because the goods were not concealed.
Final Conclusion: The confiscation of the containers could not be sustained on either ground, and the order of confiscation was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of concealment, outer containers that merely carry goods already packed in drums or packages are not themselves "packages" liable to confiscation.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
