TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Union Bank of India, Versova Branch. (iii) amount of Rs. 10,01,010 seized on 2-6-97 lying in the pay order account of M/s. TTC in Syndicate Bank, Jogeshwari Branch. (iv) amount equivalent of US $ 1,07,450 (Rs. 38,57,455 @ 35.9) available with WSFL. (v) amount equivalent to US $ 2,92,850 (Rs. 1,05,13,35 $ 35.9) available with M/s. AFS. (vi) amount of Rs. 54,75,750 belonging to M/s. TTC and Riyaz Arif Retiwala and unauthorisedly adjusted by M/s. WSFL against liabilities of M/s. TTC. (vii) amount of Rs. 9.5 lakhs seized on 31-10-97 lying in the fixed deposit account of M/s. TTC in Union Bank of India, Versova Branch. (viii) amount of Rs. 1,25,259.68 seized on 31-10-97 lying as closing balance in the current account number 30033 of M/s. TTC in Union Bank of India, Versova Branch. (ix) amount of Rs. 1,06,150 seized on 28-5-97 from the premises of M/s. TTC. (x) amount equivalent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a (RBI) to sell visa brand TCs of AFS and also have permission from RBI to sell blank TCs of the said brand to other FFMCs in India. For the stocking of the TCs of the said brand, AFS has appointed the petitioner as their agent in India. Under the permission from RBI and with the consent from AFS the petitioner appointed two sub-agents namely M/s. Time Travel and Cargo (TTC) and M/s. Mohamedi Exchange Bureau as its sub-agents for stocking and selling the TCs of the said brand. The sub-agents were also FFMCs licenced by RBI. As per the arrangement between the petitioner and TTC, blank stock of TCs would be issued to TTC at any given time within the over all limit agreed. The TCs were to be sold by TTC as per the terms and conditions of the licence granted to TTC as FFMC by RBI and as per the guidelines and instructions given in the memorandum of instructions issued by RBI from time to time. The petitioner claims to have neither any control over them nor kept any check on such transactions of sale by TTC. It was submitted that the amount of Rs. 68,00,000/- was received by way of pay orders in the normal course of its said business with TTC and by unlawfully seizing the said two pay o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of India, Hill Road Branch, Bandra West in the joint names of Assistant Director, DRI, Mumbai and M/s. Wall Street Finance Ltd., I hereby order that the said amount along with the interest accrued on the said fixed deposit shall be confiscated to Govt. account forthwith. I also order confiscation of 2,000/- and Rs. 1,010/- being the bank charges paid by M/s. TTC from their accounts maintained at respective banks for obtaining the pay orders. (f) In view of my findings above, the amount equivalent to US $ 1,07,450/- (Rs. 38,57,455/- @ 35.9) and US $ 2,92,850 (Rs. 1,05,13,315 @ 35.9) I do not order confiscation of the same. (g) In view of my findings above, only an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 54,75,750/-, can be identifiable with the sale proceeds of smuggled TCs and therefore, I order confiscation of Rs. 23,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. Wall Street Finance Ltd. shall pay the said amount forthwith. (h) I order confiscation of Rs. 9.5 lakhs (along with accrued interest if any)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by two Member Bench comprising of Shri J.H. Joglekar, Member (Technical) and Shri G.N. Srinivasan, Member (Judicial). The Member (Judicial) held that the present petitioner (appellant therein) had no locus to maintain the appeal. In so far as challenge to the confiscation was concerned, Member (Judicial) held that the money which has been confiscated in the hands of the banks represents the value of the TCs sold by TTC through Ratiwala and the same have been paid through the bankers' pay order to the appellant (present petitioner); the pay orders have not been cleared and, therefore, it is the bank's money and in that view of the matter, the appellant (present petitioner) has no locus standi to maintain the appeal. 8.The Member (Technical) did not agree with the view of the Member (Judicial) and held that the appellant (present petitioner) has locus standi to file appeal. The Member (Technical), accordingly, proceeded to deal with the appeal on merits and dismissed the same. 9.It would be, thus, seen from the order of the Tribunal that one Member of the Bench i.e. Member (Judicial) did not consider the merits of the Order-in-Original and decided to dismiss the appeal on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner a "person aggrieved" by the Order-in-Original. 14.In the case of Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg.Co.Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 502, the Supreme Court considered the term "person aggrieved" in section 129A. It was held by the Supreme Court thus- "The aforesaid provisions of the Act leave no room for doubt that they represent a complete scheme or code for challenging the orders passed by the Collector (Customs) in exercise of his statutory powers. It is axiomatic that the importer against whom the Collector has passed the impugned order of adjudication and who is called upon to pay the customs duty which, according to him, is not payable is certainly an 'aggrieved person' who can prefer an appeal under Section 129A(1) of the Act. So far as departmental authorities themselves are concerned including the Collector of Customs no direct right of appeal is concerned on Collector to prefer appeal against his own order before the CEGAT. However there is sufficient safeguard made available to the Revenue by the Act of or placing in challenge erroneous orders of adjudication as passed by the Collector of Customs by moving the Central Board of Excise and C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substance he was interested in the goods and conseguently the release order in favour of the purported importer was prone to create a legal injury to such a third party which is not actually arraigned as a party before the adjudicating authority and was not heard by it. Under such circumstances such a third party might perhaps be treated to be legally aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority and may legitimately prefer an appeal to the CEGAT as a 'person aggrieved'. That is the reason why the Legislature in its wisdom has used the phrase 'any person aggrieved' by the order of Collector of Customs as adjudicating authority in Section 129A(1). But in order to earn a locus standi as 'person aggrieved' other than the arraigned party before the Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority it must be shown that such a person aggrieved being third party has a direct legal interest in the goods involved in the adjudication process. It cannot be a general public interest or interest of a business rival as is being projected by the contesting respondents before us." 15.The phrase 'person aggrieved' has been held a wider term than 'party aggrieve....