Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Customs, Icd vs Sewa Ram & Bros. on 9 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(151)ELT344(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs holding -
"In view of the foregoing deliberations and findings, I order absolute confiscation of the goods in question under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
As the absolute confiscation should meet ends of justice 1 do not impose any penalty on the noticee."
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent herein imported serviceable rags totally valued at Rs. 31,86,854/-. They did not clear the goods, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the importer asking him to explain as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and why a penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Act ibid. The respondent herein did not respond to the Show cause notice nor did they come forward to clear the goods. I however, they had abandoned the goods and intimated their intention on 17.11.2000. The Commissioner adjudicated the case and his findings are indicated above.
3. We have heard Shri R. Tandon, learned SDR for the appellant. None was present for the respondent(s). We note that the respondents had indicated his intention to abandon goods on 17-11-2000. The show cause notice in this case was issued on 16-3-2001. We thus find that the respondent herein had even before issue of show cause notice intimated his intention to abandon the goods.
4. Section 23(2) provides -
"(2) The owner of any imported goods may, at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption under Section 47 or an order for permitting the deposit of the goods in warehouse under Section 60 has been made, relinquished his title of the goods and thereupon he shall be not be liable to pay the duty thereon."
Exemption in the light of the above quoted Section 23 (2) we note that in the instant case the owner of the imported goods had abandoned his title before clearance of the goods for home consumption and or warehousing the goods. We, therefore, hold that no penalty was required to be levied. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected.