2022 (10) TMI 751

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the importer after deduction of such payment or without such deduction?" 3. The larger bench has answered the question thus: "When the order confiscating the goods has been issued and the party has not opted to pay fine in lieu of such confiscation, then the goods can be sold and the sale proceeds would vest with the government. Penalty can still be imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act. An order for payment of all sale proceeds without deduction of redemption fine cannot, therefore, be issued." 4. Furthermore, as is evident upon reading paragraph 27 of the said order, the larger bench of the Tribunal also kept the issue open, which is, as to whether the appellant i.e., the assessee, could, even at this stage, pay fine in lieu of confiscation. 4.1. Accordingly, it was indicated by the larger bench of the Tribunal that this issue could be raised before the Division Bench, if otherwise permissible in law. 5. The rationale provided by the Tribunal is contained in the following paragraphs of the impugned order: "20. The contention of the learned Authorized Representative of the Department is that the order of confiscation has not been set aside by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot accompanied by a delay of condonation application. Secondly, there is nothing on the record to indicate when the delay condonation application was actually filed. Even otherwise, the records indicate, that it was only by letter dated 28.04.2014 that the respondent informed the adjudicating authority that an appeal had been filed. In this view of the matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in concluding that the goods should not have been auctioned as an appeal had been filed." 6. The only question which the larger bench was, as is evident, called upon to consider was, whether the revenue could adjust redemption fine against the sale proceeds from goods which were sold by it upon confiscation. 7. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the Order-in-Original was passed on 26.11.2012. 7.1. The concerned authority that passed the Order-in-Original, was not persuaded by the justification given by the appellant/assessee as to why the goods in issue i.e., marble blocks, were not cleared within the stipulated period as provided in Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 [in short "Act"]. 7.2. Consequently, the concerned authority i.e., Additional Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of redemption fine. 10.5. The reason why such a direction was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was that during the pendency of the appeal, the subject goods i.e., imported marble blocks had been sold in a public auction by the respondent/revenue. 11. It is not disputed before us by Mr Harpreet Singh, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, that the sale took place in May-June 2013. 12. As would be evident from the narration of the events set forth hereinabove, the order closing the appeal which had been filed by the appellant/assessee, in the first instance, was passed only on 20.08.2013. Clearly, at the stage when the marble blocks were sold the appeal was pending adjudication before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 12.1. Moving further, the respondent/revenue, being aggrieved by the direction issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) via the order dated 10.04.2019, preferred an appeal with the Tribunal. 12.3. The grievance, as is apparent from the record, concerned the direction whereby the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had directed that the redemption fine could not be adjusted against the sale proceeds received by the resp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....account for redemption fine imposed by statutory authorities. 14.2 According to Mr Harpreet Singh, this, in sum and substance, is the view of the larger bench of the Tribunal. 14.3 Furthermore, Mr Harpreet Singh also says that upon confiscation of the subject goods, the right and title in the said goods vested in the revenue and therefore it had every right to sell the same and make adjustments, inter alia, towards penalty and redemption fine. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. According to us, what needs to be borne in mind is the fact that all throughout i.e., right up till the stage the larger bench of the Tribunal rendered a decision in the matter, the finding that the goods had, rightly, been confiscated has not been disturbed. 16.1 As noted above, the appellant/assessee, according to the Tribunal as well as the authorities below, concluded that since the appellant/assessee had not cleared the goods within the timeframe provided under Section 48 of the Act, confiscation had to follow. 17. It is because the adjudicating authority, while passing the Order-in-Original, concluded that the subject goods had to be conf....