2000 (2) TMI 647 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Woollen Carpets Valued at Rs. 44,45,000

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of 133 woollen carpets valued at Rs. 44,45,000 and imposed penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for ... Confiscation of goods - Attempt to export illegally - Redemption fine - Ownership Issues Involved:1. Lawful ownership of the impugned carpets.2. Attempt to export the carpets to Nepal in violation of Export Control Order, 1988.3. Liability of the accused for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Lawful Ownership of the Impugned Carpets:The Commissioner examined the facts and determined the lawful ownership of the 133 pcs. of woollen carpets valued at Rs. 44,45,000/-. The investigation revealed that the bills produced were from a firm that had closed down years ago and was not conducting any business currently in carpets. Shri Srikrishna claimed ownership but his statements were inconsistent and he could not provide detailed particulars of the carpets. The Railway Receipt (RR) indicated his name both as consignor and consignee, but further enquiries showed that another person had booked the consignment. The Tribunal concluded that Shri Srikrishna was not the lawful owner and had manipulated the transaction with the intent of illegal export.2. Attempt to Export Carpets to Nepal:The Tribunal considered whether there was an attempt to export the carpets illegally to Nepal, violating Clause 3(1) of the Export Control Order, 1988. The carpets were found at Tikonia Railway Station, near the Nepal border, without proper invoices or documents. Statements from Shri Biggan and the lack of detailed knowledge about the carpets by Shri Srikrishna suggested an intention to export them to Nepal. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's distinction between 'preparation' and 'attempt,' noting that the attempt begins where preparation ends. The Tribunal concluded that the carpets had reached Tikonia, a point from which they could easily be transported across the border, thus constituting an attempt to export.3. Liability for Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:The Tribunal examined whether penalties were justifiable under Section 114 of the Customs Act for attempting to export goods illegally. The Tribunal referenced various judgments, including the Supreme Court and High Court decisions, to affirm that an attempt to export goods in contravention of the law renders the goods liable to confiscation and the individuals involved liable to penalties. The Tribunal found that the appellants had mens rea (guilty mind) in attempting to export the goods illegally. Consequently, the carpets were rightly confiscated, and penalties were imposed on the individuals involved. However, the Tribunal reduced the penalty on Shri Srikrishna to Rs. 2 lakhs and on the remaining appellants to Rs. 10,000 each, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the carpets and the imposition of penalties, albeit with modifications to the penalty amounts. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, affirming the findings of illegal attempt to export and the lack of lawful ownership by Shri Srikrishna.