By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 09, 2013: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

Vide Order-in-Appeal dated 01/07/2003, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai held that since the goods are not notified under section 123 and Chapter IVA dealing with notified goods have been deleted from the Customs Act, 1962, the goods are not liable to absolute confiscation, let alone confiscation. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.

Revenue is not happy with this "all is lost" order and, therefore, is before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that the goods were of foreign origin as is evident from the markings on the goods and the respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence showing licit purchase/possession of the goods and, therefore, are liable to confiscation.

The respondent stated that when the goods were seized, he had approached the Customs department and had given them the tax invoice as well as the railway receipts for transporting the goods from Chennai to Mumbai. Therefore, he is the owner of the goods. However, he had not retained a copy of the same. It is also submitted that after the impugned order was passed he had approached the Customs authorities for release of the goods vide letter dated 10/07/2003 and he was informed vide letter dated 04/01/2005 that the goods had already been disposed of.

The Bench observed -

"5.1 Since the goods are not notified under section 123 and the provisions of Chapter IVA, relating to notified goods have been deleted from the Customs Act more than a decade back, the Customs cannot absolutely confiscate the goods at all and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is right in setting aside the order of confiscation and directing the Revenue to return the goods to the respondent Shri Manoj Gupta. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in his order.

5.2 Inasmuch as the goods have already been disposed of, the Revenue is directed to refund the sale proceeds of the goods to the respondent Shri Manoj Gupta within any further delay."

The Revenue appeal was disposed of in the above terms.

By the way, what were the goods…

(See 2013-TIOL-708-CESTAT-MUM)