Page 224 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

558 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 558 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and C.L. Mahar, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ICD, TKD), NEW DELHI
Versus
ORIENTAL TRIMEX LTD.
Misc. Order Nos. MO/50151-50152/2020-CU(DB), dated 13-3-2020 in Application
Nos. C/MISC/50665/2019 with C/MISC/50732/2019 in Appeal No. C/51487/2019
Redemption fine - Sale of confiscated goods - Whether redemption
fine and penalty, if any, imposed in adjudication order needs to be recovered
from sale proceeds, if confiscated goods are sold/disposed of by auction dur-
ing pendency of appeal - Contradicting decisions by different Benches of Tri-
bunal - Matter referred to Larger Bench - Sections 111, 112 and 125 of Customs
Act, 1962. - Once confiscation of the goods is held to be valid in any proceedings, the
property in the goods is vested in the Government and the sale proceeds being the total
consideration of such property as a natural corollary such sale proceeds will represent the
confiscated goods. Once the confiscated goods allowed to the redeemed on a redemption
fine, the sale proceeds which represent the goods, will be paid to the importer only after
deduction of such fine. Thus, the redemption fine is to be charged from the importer while
releasing the goods, the same also needs to be recovered from the sale proceeds which rep-
resent the consideration of the property. [para 7]
Matter referred to Larger Bench
CASES CITED
Collector v. Essma Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. — 1994 (74) E.L.T. 588 (Tribunal) — Referred ............ [Para 3]
Oriental Trimex Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (358) E.L.T. 1113 (Tribunal) — Referred ............... [Para 5]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
D.G.F.T. Policy Circular No. 37(RE-08)/2004-2009, dated 31-10-2008 .............................................. [Para 1]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sunil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, Authorized
Representative (DRs), for the Appellant.
Shri B.K. Singh. Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : C.L. Mahar, Member (T)]. - The importer - appellant is en-
gaged in the business of import of marble from various countries into India and
the goods in question are covered under the category of restricted goods in terms
of provisions of Exim Policy and a license is required for valid importation of
these goods as per D.G.F.T. Policy Circular No. 37 (RE-08)/2004-2009, dated 31-
10-2008. The importer - appellant appeared to have not cleared the imported
goods namely marble blocks classifiable under Heading No. 2515 valued at Rs.
59,07,768/- even after expiry of the period of 30 days as stipulated under Section
48 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, seven Show Cause Notices having dif-
ferent dates were issued to the importer - appellant as well as to any other person
making any claim on the goods. During the course of personal hearing the
importer claimed that as they were facing acute financial crisis, a request was
made for granting time till 31-10-2012 for taking clearance of the goods. The
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  224