2001 (3) TMI 714 - AT - Customs

Customs Act: Tribunal upholds property attachment, penalties, and goods confiscation. Repealed order effects confirmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the rectification applications, upheld the Customs' attachment of properties, confirmed penalties by the Additional Chief ... Rectification of Mistake Issues Involved:1. Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's final order.2. Validity of the Customs' attachment of properties.3. Authority of the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.4. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Applicability of repealed laws and orders.6. Interpretation of 'law' and 'order' under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Rectification of Mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order:The rectification applications were filed to address alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's final order No. C-II/716 to 722/2000/WZB dated 9-3-2000. The Tribunal examined whether a mistake apparent on record existed under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal concluded that no mistake was apparent from the record, as the arguments presented did not demonstrate an obvious error but rather sought a re-evaluation of the case, which is not permissible under the rectification provisions.2. Validity of the Customs' Attachment of Properties:Following the Tribunal's order, the Customs authorities took steps to attach the properties of the applicants under the Customs Attachment of Properties of Defaulters (For Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. The Tribunal upheld the actions taken by the Customs, indicating that the properties were attached lawfully in response to the non-payment of penalties by the applicants.3. Authority of the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports:The Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had imposed penalties and debarred M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Limited and its Directors from importing goods. The Tribunal confirmed that the authority exercised by the Additional Chief Controller was valid and within the powers conferred by the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The order remained effective despite the repeal of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, by the Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application Rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993, due to the saving clause in Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.4. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods imported by M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Limited under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were deemed liable for confiscation as they were imported in contravention of the prohibitions imposed by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the order of the Additional Chief Controller was not a sufficient authority for confiscation under Section 111(d).5. Applicability of Repealed Laws and Orders:The Tribunal addressed the argument that the order of the Additional Chief Controller ceased to exist after the repeal of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. It was concluded that the prohibitions and penalties imposed under the repealed order continued to be effective until the year 2000, as specified in the original order, due to the saving clause in the repealing legislation.6. Interpretation of 'Law' and 'Order' under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act:The Tribunal clarified that the term 'law' under Section 111(d) includes orders issued under the authority of the relevant Act. Thus, the order passed by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports constituted a valid legal basis for the confiscation of goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the prohibition imposed by or under any law for the time being in force includes orders issued under such laws.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the rectification applications, finding no apparent mistake in its original order. It upheld the Customs' attachment of properties and confirmed the validity of the penalties and prohibitions imposed by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) was deemed lawful, and the repealed order's effects were upheld due to the saving clause in the repealing legislation. The interpretation of 'law' under Section 111(d) was clarified to include orders issued under the authority of the relevant Act. The stay petitions were also dismissed as they did not survive the dismissal of the rectification applications.