TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether the first respondent has correctly decided the ownership of the goods? 2. Whether the first respondent is right in relying on Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 when the said Section has no application at all to the facts of the case? 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made an endorsement giving up the 3rd respondent. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the 3rd respondent - M/s. Sandip Exports Limited was holder of advance licence and imported 3061.82 Kgs of "Mulberry Raw Silk" from China under Bill of Entry No. 39260, dated 8-9-2003 mentioning the value of the goods as 37507 US$. The said importer availed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 48/99, dated 29-4-1999 cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Order dated 4-5-2006 denied the benefit of duty exemption claimed under Customs Notification No. 48/99, dated 29-4-1999 and demanded differential duty of Rs. 20,34,882/- along with interest applicable as per Section 28AB of the Customs Act. The goods were directed to be confiscated under Section 111(m)) and 111(o) of the Customs Act with an option to Sandip Exports Limited to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- was imposed on Sandip Exports Limited under Section 112(a) of the Act. So far as the claim made by the appellant for change of title was repudiated in respect of the said goods. Aggrieved by that portion of the Order passed by the Commissioner repudiating the claim of the appellant, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was after efflux of time, that too, after the seizure of the goods and that the recalling of the documents by the overseas supplier from the importer's bank could have been made only on the advice of the importer on the ground that the importer relinquished the title to the goods. As regards the plea raised by the appellant claiming for release of goods it was pointed that if that was permitted, the recovery of penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- could not be made by the Department and they have to look upon the original importer of the same. Therefore, this Court was of the view that Sandip Exports Limited should be made a party before the Tribunal and without impleading them as a party to the proceedings, the plea raised by the appellant cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th these matters, where issues are pending before the higher forums. Accordingly, with these observations, the appeals stood disposed of. On remand, the Tribunal impleaded M/s. Sandip Exports Limited as a party to the proceedings and after issuing notice, the original importer was represented through counsel and contended that they do not have money to retrieve the documents from the Bank in respect of the goods in question and they are not claiming, the goods. We are at a loss to understand as to how Sandip Exports Limited could have taken such stand, more so, when the goods have already been confiscated and seized by the Department. The Tribunal, after consideration of the facts, by Order dated 10-12-2010 dismissed the appeal. Challenging....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt attempt to clear the very same goods without payment of duty under the advance licence scheme, to which the Sandip Exports Limited were not entitled to. After noticing the facts, the Tribunal confirmed the Order passed by the Commissioner ordering confiscation. We agree with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal while confirming the Order passed by the adjudicating authority. As regards the claim of the appellant herein, in our view, the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A. No. 1028 of 2007, dated 11-11-2009 clearly stares at the appellant. On facts, the original authority found that there was no relinquishment of goods by the original buyer and there could have been no such relinquishment, more so, when the Cus....