TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported Dry Dates from Dubai originating from Iran, about 8 containers thereof valued at Rs. 1,24,22,876/- and 6 bills of entry of the dates were produced against the consignment. b) The Customs department received intelligence information that this consignment did not originate in Iran but loaded from Karachi Port by one agency namely Maersk Pakistan Line and the Petitioner showed the custom authorities the following Bills of Entry in its ledger book to dispel the suspicion of the Customs Department- SNo. Bill of Entry & Date Container No. Assessable Value 1. 5266364 dated 12.10.2019 MSKU1096949 SUDU6634850 Rs. 3210314 2. 5266615 dated 12.10.2019 MSKU6524119 Rs. 1605157 3. 5303582 dated 15.12.2019 TGHU4674899 MSKU8013669 Rs. 2883446 4. 5309933 dated 16.10.2019 MSKU0254778 Rs. 1511036 5. 5312175 dated 16.10.2019 MRKU4983009 Rs. 1524899 6. 5363294 dated 19.10.2019 MRKU4378780 Rs. 1528069 c) The 8 containers were accordingly taken in custody. For investigation, the department, on 01.11.2019 summoned the freight forwarder of M/s Sea Fast Shipping Agency and checked his phone. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arshi Manish, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Ld. CMM did not possess the jurisdiction to pass an order to dispose of the imported goods under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that the Customs Act is a self-contained code which governs the importing of goods in the country and has its own special powers, procedures, regulations and rules which have been arrived at pursuant to its unique objective it aims to fulfill; he argued that Customs Act being a special legislation, the provisions of the Cr.P.C would be inapplicable. He submits that any disposal of the goods should have been in accordance with Chapter XIV of the Act which prescribes for confiscation of goods and the levying of penalties and punishment and any rule made in pursuance thereunder. 4. He submitted that Section 451 of the Cr.P.C authorizes a criminal court to dispose of the property which is subject to decay, he would contend that a criminal court does not have any jurisdiction under the Customs Act. He states that the Customs Act is self contained and only the authorities under the Customs Act have the jurisdiction/power to dispose of the goods confiscated under the Customs Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....postulates an inquiry or trial under the Cr.P.C and which cannot be invoked for dealing with the goods which have been confiscated under Customs Act. 9. Per Contra, Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. SPP vehemently opposed the submissions of the Petitioner. He submitted that firstly the consignment of goods imported into India was falsely shown as being imported from Iran and was imported in India from Karachi, Pakistan to evade payment of the applicable customs duty on goods arriving in India from Pakistan. He submitted that the bills shown by the Petitioner showing the origin of the seized goods (dry dates) as Iran were false and that the Petitioner had deliberately mis-declared the origin of the country from where it was imported and this has been carefully verified by the department from M/s Maersk Line Pvt. Line which was the shipping agent of the goods. He submitted that the Petitioner is guilty directly of Section 46(4) of the Customs Act which warrants an importer to subscribe to a declaration as to the correctness of the contents of the bill of entry, and such a violation would entail confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and be subject to a penalty under Section 112(a) (ii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an opportunity to the Petitioner to deposit the penalty and after giving chances to explain cogently the circumstances to prove the authenticity of the bills/certificates of origin. 12. The learned SPP relied on the following judgments: Manjit Singh v. State, CRL. M.C. 4485/2013 - Delhi High Court. Sunderlal Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 13. Heard arguments of both parties, perused the case record and the case laws filed in support of the rivaling contentions. 14. The Customs Act provides for a comprehensive framework governing the import and export of goods, articles into the country with an objective to curb smuggling of goods into the country through seaports and airports. The Customs Act is a complete code in itself and it being a special legislation, it has its own powers, procedures, rules and mode of operation including the powers of arrest, investigation, examination of persons, inspection, seizure, confiscation, adjudication, imposition of penalty, appellate mechanisms, the settlement commission. These reasons in itself confer vast powers on the customs department for it being a statute which aims at preventing the prolifer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s at great length dealt with the question that is posed by the present case. It was held therein that - "33. In terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, it has been specifically laid down that where any goods are seized under Sub-section (1) of Section 110 and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 in the Act of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the persons from whose possession they were seized though the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may for the reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods are seized before the expiry of the period so specified. 34. It is thus apparent that in terms of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, all the goods or documents seized under Section 110A may pending adjudication be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form as the adjudicating authority may require. 35. In terms of Section 111, it has already been observed herein above that the improperly brought imported goods from a place outside India can be confiscated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods 1[or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized,] an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. 2[(2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1) the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1) shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods.] 39. Further more, in terms of Section 126 of the said enactment, goods once confiscated are the property vested in the Central Government and the officer adjudging the confiscation has to take hold the possession of the confiscated goods. 40. In terms of Section 127 of the said enactment, the award of any confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 by an officer of Customs shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected is liable under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a complete code in relation to the searches, seizures and confiscation of contraband in terms of the Customs Act, 1962 and also provides for the adjudication in relation to the release thereof. 49. It is apparent thus at the stage of investigation being conducted by the Customs Officers that the provision of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 thus do not operate. ***** 54. Thus, it is apparent that despite the non-existence of a specific bar to the jurisdiction of Courts in the Customs Act, 1962 to release of the seized goods during investigation by the Customs Authority, the Trial Court could not have invoked the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 for release of the vehicles in question on superdari in as much as the seizure of the two vehicles in question was not subject matter of any 'inquiry' or 'trial' before the learned CMM at the time of consideration of the prayer for release of the vehicles on superdari. The impugned orders of the learned Trial Court are thus set aside. The petition Nos. Crl.M.C. Nos. 4316/2016 and 4767/2016 are thus allowed." (emphasis supplied) 17. The said judgment has been challenged in the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sposal of: I. Goods seized under the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 CGST Act 2017), the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (IGST Act 2017) and the Central Excise Act, 1944; II. Goods confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962, the CGST Act 2017, the IGST Act 2017and the Central Excise Act, 1944; III. Goods uncleared/ unclaimed after importation into India and lying in the Customs Area; IV. Mishandled Baggage; V. Goods that involve Time-Expired Bonds; and VI. Goods detained under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.2. The procedures prescribed in this Manual are based on the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act, 1944, the CGST Act 2017, the IGST Act 2017, the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, and other Allied Acts. In case of any inconsistency between these procedures and the statutory provisions, the later shall prevail. 1.3. Whereas this Manual indicates the general procedures to be followed, the concerned Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners may make requisite changes thereto, as may be necessitated by local conditions, keeping in view the spiri....