1999 (9) TMI 675 - AT - Customs

Supreme Court Overturns Confiscation Order & Penalties for Importation Violations

The Supreme Court set aside the confiscation order and penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Act on a company and individuals for aiding and abetting ... Confiscation and Penalty Issues:1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Act.2. Invocation of clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act for confiscation.3. Premature invocation of clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act.4. Treatment of consignments differently based on circumstances.5. Imposition of penalties on individuals aiding and abetting.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment involved five appeals against the order of the Collector, which confiscated polyvinyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, and ionic emulsifier imported by a company. The order imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Act on the company, its director, manager, and two other individuals for aiding and abetting.2. The goods were imported under a scheme, and the Collector found that the company had sold the import pass book, leading to the confiscation of goods under clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act. The advocate for the company argued that the goods were still uncleared, making it premature to invoke clause (o). The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the need for the condition to not be observed within a reasonable period for confiscation under this clause.3. The company's advocate emphasized that the company had not disowned the consignments under consideration, unlike previous cases, and had filed a bill of entry for clearance. This difference required treating the consignments differently. The payment made in relation to the consignments was not specifically linked to them, supporting the argument against invoking clause (o) of Section 111.4. The tribunal concluded that there was no ground for confiscation of goods or imposition of penalties. Therefore, the confiscation order and penalties on the company, its director, and manager were set aside. Consequently, penalties were not imposable on the individual aiding and abetting. The lack of reasons for imposing penalties on another individual led to setting aside the impugned order.In summary, the judgment addressed issues related to the confiscation of goods, the invocation of clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act, the premature application of the clause, the differential treatment of consignments, and the imposition of penalties on involved individuals. The tribunal's decision focused on legal interpretations, adherence to conditions, and the lack of grounds for confiscation and penalties, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.