Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adarsh Kumar Goel and Rajesh Bindal JJ.
B.R.Enterprises
Versus
Commissioner Of Customs, Icd, Tkd, New Delhi
CWP No. 12247 of 2006,
Decided On : OCTOBER 13, 2006
Customs Act - Confiscation of Goods - Section 113, Section 114 - The court discussed the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 113 and Section 114, and their application to the case. The court found that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113 and imposed a penalty under Section 114(iii). However, the goods were required to be released in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 10-12-2003.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of goods seized by Custom authorities, alleging that the goods were bought for export but were seized and alleged to be liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, but were required to be released in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 10-12-2003. A penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/- was imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the seizure and liability for confiscation of the goods under the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioner's entitlement to damages for illegal detention of the goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Act but were required to be released in view of the order of the Tribunal. The court also declined to grant damages to the petitioner due to the petitioner's conduct being found contumacious.
Final Decision: The court directed the release of the goods within two months from the date of receipt of the order, considering the undisputed facts and the directions of the Tribunal for release of goods.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to Custom authorities to release the material of the petitioner lying at the Port and to allow cost of demurrage.
2. Case of the petitioner is that it bought goods i.e., hand-tools on 4-9-2002 for export. On examination of the consignment, the goods were seized on the allegation that the same were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, #24;the Act#25;) on 3-10-2002. Thereafter, neither any show cause notice was issued under Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of the Act nor the goods were released. On expiry of the period specified under the said provisions, the authorities could not confiscate the goods. On 25-4-2003, the show cause notice was given in extended period which was set aside by the Tribunal on 10-12-2003 [2004 (164) E.L.T. 266 (Tri. - Del.)] vide order Annexure P.l. Thereafter, investigation was completed vide order dated 13-4-2005, Annexure P.2. Relevant observations and findings in the order are extracted below :-
#28;68. Market enquiries were conducted on 25-8-2003 to ascertain the value of goods declared by the exporters in their invoices. The comparison as detailed below reflects that the FOB value was highly inflated to cover the excess weight declared by the exporter in their aforesaid shipment : S. Item Declared Value No. FOB as per M.E. xx xx xx xx Xx M/s. B.R. Enterprises 1. Combination Spanner set of 91.66 74.00 14 pcs. 2. Ring Spanner set of 12 pcs. 145.50 77.00 3. Combination Spanner 6 mm 53.35 40.00 to 22mm. 4. DOE Spanner 6 pcs. Set 87.30 13.00 5. DOE Spanner 8 pcs. Set 97.00 24.00 6. Ring Spanner 6x7 mm, 8 & 9.70 8.88 9mm., 12 & 13 mm 7. Combination Spanner 9.70 2.96 xx xx xx xx Xx
#28;77. From the foregoing, it also appears that :-
(a) xx xx xx Xx (b) xx xx xx Xx (c) Shri Bakshi Ram, proprietor of M/s. B.R. Enterprises in connivance with Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Jai Singh filed export documents i.e., invoice and packing showing excess weight, value and misdeclared the description of export goods/consignment to avail undue export benefits fraudulently at ICD, Patparganj. It also appears that Shri Ashok Kumar was real beneficiary and Shri Bakshi Ram was shown as proprietor of M/s. B.R. Enterprises for name sake only as stated by S/Shri Jai Singh and D.K. Singhal in their statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 . The fact is also clear from the statement of Shri Bakshi Ram as he could not provide the name, telephone number and place where his overseas buyer was situated. He has also opened his Delhi office in the premises occupied by Shri Jai Singh.#29;
xx xx xx xx xx
#28;105. M/s. B.R. Enterprises have attempted to export a total number of 1048 Cartons under Invoice No. BRE/12/2002 both dated 19-8-2002 containing spanners and Ring Spanners in the guise of Cobalt bearing tools bit with declared FOB Value of Rs. 33,85,397/-. On Market Enquiry the value of the spanner set has been found to be from Rs. 2.96 to Rs. 74/-per spanner set against the declared FOB value of Rs. 9.70 to Rs. 91.66 per set.#29; xx xx xx xx xx #28;112. From all above I conclude that (i) xx xx xx xx (ii) xx xx xx xx (iii) M/s. B.R. Enterprises have attempted to fraudulently export 1048 Carton weighing 22919 Kgs of combination spanners ring spanner with highly inflated declared FOB value of Rs. 3385397/- in the guise of cobalt bearing tools bit so as to avail under DEPB/DFRC/DBK benefit and the said goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 . M/s. B.R. Enterprises have also rendered themselves for penal action under Section 114 (iii) of the Act ibid.#29;
xx xx xx xx
In view of the above findings I order :-
1. xx xx xx xx 2. xx xx xx xx 3. The goods of declared FOB value Rs. 33,85,397/- attempted to be exported by M/s. B.R. Enterprises are held liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 . Ho
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
