LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, NEW DELHI versus M/S BROOKS INTERNA TI ON AL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.,.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, NEW DELHI
A
_...
v.
MIS BROOKS INTERNA TI ON AL AND ORS.
MAY 24, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]
B
·t
Customs Act, 1962; ss. 76 & IJ3 (c) & (d):
Duty drawback-Export of goods-Seizure of consignment by Revenue
authorities ordering confiscation of all the goods under s. IJ 3( d)-Appeal c
allowed by Tribunal holding that the authorities had no power of confiscation
of the goods in question and no .material placed to show that the goods did
not correspond to the description of the goods as disclosed in the bills-On
appeal, held: Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh keeping in
view the principles set out by its larger bench and approved by the Supreme D
Court on similar issues in the matter of Om prakash Bhati v. C.I. T. Delhi
>{_
The question arose for determination in these appeals was that in case
the market value of goods under export is much less than the amount of
drawback claimed, whether such goods can be confiscated by the authorities
for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
E
Revenue contended that Section 113(1)(c) and (d) of the Customs Act
apply as they deal with three types of goods i.e. excisable goods, prohibited
goods and goods entered for exportation; that the assessee attempted to export
old and used readymade garments which is not permissible under Rule 3 of
the Drawback Rules; that the market value was less than duty drawback which F
was not admissible under Section 76(1) (b) of the Act; and·that CEGAT has
erroneously interpreted the provisions of Section 113(c) and (d) of the Act
and the contents of the show-cause notice were not properly analysed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It would be appropriate for the CEGAT which had not G
considered the effect of the larger bench judgment, which had approval of this
Court in the matter of Om Prakash Bhati v. CIT, Delhi, to rehear the appeals
keeping in view the principles set out in the said case.
)
(Para 81 (798-G; 799-AI
791
H'
A
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 7 S.C.R.
Om Prakash Bhati v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 120031 6 SCC
161, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4559-4561 of
2002.
B
From the Fil"!al Judgment and Order No .. A/242-244/2002/NB-D dated
06.02.2002 of the CEGAT, New Delhi in Appeal No. C/171-173/01-NB.
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv., S.J Aristotle and B. Krishna Prasad for
i'
the Appellant.
C
Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker, M.R.
o-
Shamshad, Pravesh Thakur, Yash Pal Dhingra and Ashish Mohan for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Since all these appeals relate to identical
q,..iestion, they are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
2. The basic issue is when the market value of goods under export is
much less than the amount of drawback claimed,. whether such goods can be
E confiscated for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short
the 'Act'). In the matters relating to CA No.4559-456 l of 2002, the respondent
had sent a consignment to the export shed of ICD, TKD, New Delhi for
exporting the same under claim for duty drawback. On the basis of intelligence,
Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence (in short 'ORI') detained the consignment.
It was, prima facie, noted that the goods did not appear as per description,
F quantity and value disclosed in the bills. The consignments of the respondents
were examined on different dates by DRI.
3. Consignment of RI was examined by ORI on 7.1.1999 & 12.1.1999,
Consignment of R2 was examined by ORI on 18.1.1999 & 25.1.1999, Consignment
G ofR3 was examined by DRI on 14.1.1999 & 08.02.1999.
4. The Commissioner ofCustoms directed confiscation of all the: goods
under Section 1I3(d) and (i) of the Act and allowed to redeem of the same
on payment of fine of Rs. I 0,00,000/-, disallowed the export of readymade
garments and claim of drawback. No penal action was invoked as ORI
H contemplated to seek separate adjudication in respect of the penal clause
(
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 1•. BROOKS INTERNATIONAL [PASAYAT. J.)
793
provided under the Act. Appeals were preferred before the Customs, Excise A
~
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CEGA T) which allowed the
appeals holding that there was no power of confiscation and there was no
material placed to record to suggest that the gooExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.