Page 206 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

252 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

visionary Authority, thereon, defeat comprehension. It is undisputed that Peti-
tioner No. 2 is the owner of the seized currency. Both the petitioners were before
the AC, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Revisionary Authority. The only
issue agitated before the Revisionary Authority, by the Revenue, was that re-
demption of the currency ought not to have been granted to Petitioner No. 1, as
he was only the carrier and not the owner, thereof. The impugned order of the
Revisionary Authority, quite surprisingly, sets aside the Order-in-Appeal of the
Commissioner (Appeals) by accepting this contention. The Revisionary Authori-
ty has held that, as the owner of the goods, i.e., Surender Gupta (Petitioner No. 2)
was known, redemption of the currency could not have been granted to Petition-
er No. 1.
14. Legally speaking, there can be no cavil with this proposition, inas-
much as Section 125 of the Customs Act requires redemption to be granted to the
owner of the goods and, if the owner of the goods is not known, to the person
from whose possession the goods were seized. For ready reference, Section 125 of
the Customs Act is reproduced as under :-
“125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. — (1) Whenever con-
fiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it
may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is
prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in
force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the
goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose posses-
sion or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of
confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit :
Provided that where the proceedings are deemed to be concluded under
the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 28 or under the clause (i) of sub-
section (6) of that section in respect of the goods, which are not prohibited
or restricted, the provisions of this section shall not apply :
Provided that further without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to
sub-section (2) of Section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of
the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargea-
ble thereon.
(2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-
section (1) the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section
(1) shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of
such goods.
(3) Where the fine imposed under sub-section (1) is not paid within a pe-
riod of one hundred and twenty days from the date of option given there-
under, such option shall become void, unless an appeal against such order
is pending.”
15. The owner of the currency being Surender Gupta (Petitioner No. 2),
there could, undisputedly, be no question of releasing the currency to Petitioner
No. 1. We are, however, completely at a loss as to how, on this ground, the Revi-
sionary Authority could allow the Revision Application of the Revenue. Both the
petitioners were before him. A reading of the Order-in-Original of the AC does
not indicate that option to redeem the currency had been granted, by the AC, to
Petitioner No. 1. The Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) makes the
matter clear by observing that, as the owner, i.e., Petitioner No. 2, was known,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  222