SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 4

M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos. 139 to 143 of 1985, D/- 6-1-1987.
Hargovind Das K. Joshi and others, Appellants
Versus
Collector of Customs and others, Respondents.

Headnote:

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 125(l) - Consignment Goods - Imposing Penalty - Goods On Payment - Lieu Of Confiscation - Additional Collector of Customs by an order confiscated a consignment of goods imported by appellants and imposed a penalty on appellants - Three questions have been raised by appellants - Validity of order confiscating goods - Validity of order imposing penalty - Failure to give option to appellants for redeeming goods on payment of such fine as may be determined by Collector of Customs in lieu of confiscation – Held, Court is of view that in so far as order directing confiscation of goods is concerned, it is unassailable in facts or in law - So also order levying penalty is justified by facts and warranted by law - There is however, substance in last contention urged on behalf of counsel for appellants - Collector of Customs has passed an order for absolute confiscation of imported goods without giving appellants an option to redeem same on payment of such fine as may be considered appropriate by him - Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for appellants on S. 125(l), Customs Act - In support of plea that Collector had discretion to pass such an order and he should have addressed himself to question whether or not discretion should be so exercised having regard to facts and circumstances of case - Additional Collector of Customs who passed order of confiscation undoubtedly had discretion to give an option to appellants to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation - Presumably Additional Collector of Customs assumed that he was bound to confiscate goods becuase he has not adverted to this aspect in his order - He had undoubtedly authority under law to give an option to importers to pay such fine as was considered appropriate by him in lieu of confiscation of goods – Court is of opinion that since Additional Collector of Customs who passed the order for absolute confiscation had the discretion to give the option for redemption, it was but just, fair and proper that he addressed himself to this question - Order passed by Additional Collector of Customs as confirmed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal therefore requires to be modified only to this limited extent - Court, therefore, direct that matter be remitted to Collector of Customs for this limited purpose to this limited extent as to whether or not to give an option to importers to redeem confiscated goods on payment of such fine as may be considered appropriate by him in lieu of confiscation - It will be open to concerned officer to take a decision one way or other in accordance with law as is considered appropriate in circumstances of case after hearing appellants - Court have no doubt that concerned officer will take into consideration all relevant circumstances including submission urged on behalf of counsel for appellants that goods in question, zip-fasteners, can at present be imported freely for whatever it is worth – Appeal Dismissed.

JUDGMENT:- These appeals arc capable of being disposed of on a shot ground. The Additional Collector of Customs by an order dated 30-12-1982 confiscated a consignment of goods (zip fasteners) imported by the appellants and imposed a penalty on the appellants. The said order has been confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by its judgment andorder dated 27/28th November, 1984.

2. Three questions have been raised by the appellants :

(1) Validity of the order confiscating the goods.

(2) Validity of the order imposing penalty.

(3) Failure to give option to the appellants for redeeming the goods on payment of such fine as may be determined by the Collector of Customs in lieu of confiscation.

3. We are of the view that in so far as the order directing confiscation of the goods is concerned, it is unassailable in facts or in law. So also the order levying penalty is justified by facts and warranted by law. There is however, substance in the last contention urged on behalf of counsel for the appellants. The Collector of Customs has passed an order for absolute confiscation of the imported goods without giving the appellants an option to redeem the same on payment of such fine as may be considered appropriate by him. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on S. 125(l), Customs Act. in support of the plea that the Collector had the discretion to pass such an order and he should have addressed himself to the question whether or not the discretion should be so exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Additional Collector of Customs who passed the order of confiscation undoubtedly had the discretion to give an option to the appellants to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. Presumably the Additional Collector of Customs assumed that he was bound to confiscate the goods becuase he has not adverted to this aspect in his order. He had undoubtedly the authority under law to give an option to the importers to pay such fine as was considered appropriate by him (not exceeding the full market value of the goods in question) in lieu of confiscation of the goods. We are of the opinion that since the Additional Collector of Customs who passed the order for absolute confiscation had the discretion to give the option for redemption, it was but just, fair and proper that he addressed himself to this question. The order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs as confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal therefore requires to be modified only to this limited extent.

4. We, therefore, direct that the matter be remitted to the Collector of Customs for this limited purpose to this limited extent as to whether or not to give an option to the importers (appellants) to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of such fine as may be considered appropriate by him in lieu of confiscation. It will be open to the concerned officer to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law as is considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case after hearing the appellants. We have no doubt that the concerned officer will take into consideration all the relevant circumstances including the submission urged on behalf of counsel for the appellants that the goods in question, zip-fasteners, can at present be imported freely for whatever it is worth.

5. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed subject to modification to the aforesaid limited extent. There will be no order as to costs.

Order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top