TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The advance licence is dated 22.3.2002. It prescribed for the benefit of duty exemption under Customs Notification No.48/99 dated 29.04.99. The Bill of Entry declared the value of the goods as 39803.66 US$. The assessable value of the goods in Indian Rupees was Rs.18,49,278/-. The importer, however, did not come forward to clear the goods for a long time. The consignment was seized by the officers of SIIB on 01.10.2004 and was liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. Be that as it may, the investigation by DRI revealed that M/s Sandip Exports Limited was a continuous defaulter and was misusing the import licence dated 22.03.2002 on very many aspects. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to M/s Sandip Exports Limited by the Commissioner for recovery of duty of Rs.20,34,882/- which was covered by the above referred to Bill of Entry. M/s Sandip Exports Limited did not respond to the show cause notice nor did they appear for the personal hearings before the Commissioner. (b) In the abovestated background, the first respondent herein made a representation on 28.03.2005 contending that the supplier (Chinese party) had recalled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k and produced the same before the adjudicating authority and also having undertook to pay the appropriate customs duty and redemption fine, they are entitled to claim ownership of the goods. The Tribunal by following its own earlier order passed in Order-in-Original No.3567/2005 dated 21.3.2005 relating to one M/s Adani Exports Limited and by reducing the redemption fine for obtaining the release of the goods from the level of Rs.30 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs, directed the appellant to release the goods in favour of the first respondent. 3. At the time when this appeal was entertained the only question of law framed was "Whether the Tribunal is right in reducing the penalty, under the facts and circumstances of the case?" In the grounds of appeal, however, the appellant had raised yet another question as to the ownership of the goods. 4. Having heard Mr.P.Mahadevan, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the first respondent we are of the opinion that the other question of law raised by the appellant as to the ownership has also got to be examined in this appeal for the proper disposal of the appeal.&n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order in the absence of M/s Sandip Exports Limited. Therefore, for non-impleading of the proper party, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. We say so because when we peruse the Order-in-Original we find this question as to the entitlement of the original importer to the goods imported has been considered by the original authority who has found that there was no relinquishment of the goods by the original buyer of the title to the goods, that it can never relinquish the title to the said goods inasmuch as the goods have already been seized by the Customs Authority for infringement of the conditions of advance licence, that in law, the supplier had not recalled the documents in respect of the said goods, that the socalled amendment of manifest by the overseas supplier was after the 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 advise of the importer on the ground that the importer relinquished the title to the goods. That apart, the original authority, while passing the order in original had imposed the penalty of Rs.8 lakhs apart f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the release of the goods, the levy of duty, the levy of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and for the levy of penalty for improper import. The Tribunal ought to have examined the question as to the rights of the original importer, namely, M/s Sandip Exports Limited and the present claim of the first respondent who seeks to virtually subrogate itself to that of the original importer based on certain documents stated to have been obtained from the overseas supplier. 11. That apart, as pointed out by the original authority in the Order-in-Original where very many circumstances relating to the role to be played by the original importer for the purpose of transfer of ownership of the goods imported, the consequences of the seizure of the goods etc., are very vital factors which should have been examined by the Tribunal before ordering its release. 12. On a perusal of the Tribunal's order, we find that it is not solitary occasion where M/s Sandip Exports Limited has committed a default which had occasioned the first respondent to claim for release of the goods imported in its place. The order relied upon by the Tribunal was also related to the very same importer (viz)M/s Sandip ....