By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 22, 2016: THE issue is regarding confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and (o) which were cleared from SEEPZ area.

The Appellants removed "garbage and sweeps" from SEEPZ area and subsequently recovered precious metals from such garbage. It is the case of the department that appellant is not the person who is authorised to remove such "garbage" from SEEPZ area, being in possession of precious metal which are liable to confiscation and liable for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The CESTAT observed -

+ argument that main appellant and others are importers and hence these declaration etc. cannot be sustained against them is an incorrect argument, as from the records it is very clear the appellant was not an authorised agent for removing of garbage and sweeps from SEEPZ area;

+ the said contract was awarded to some other person and that person had out sourced the removal of garbage and sweeps from SEEPZ without any authorization from authorities;

+ this would indicate the appellants were undertaking the activity of removal of garbage and sweeps in unauthorized manner which itself calls for imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Finding no merits in the appeals, the same were rejected.

(See 2016-TIOL-3027-CESTAT-MUM)