Vinod Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The dispute initially as raised by the petitioner was with regard to the seizure and confiscation of the goods by the Customs Authorities. Later on however when the confiscation order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs was set aside by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the dispute got converted into one relating to the liabilities of the parties with regard to the payment of the port and demurrage charges. The facts lying in a very narrow campas. The petitioner imported three consignments of goods in the month of April, 1992, whereas the first consignment was cleared and/or released without any problem. The dispute arose with regard to two consignments. It was on June 8, 1992 that both the consignments were seized by the Customs Authorities. Consequent upon the seizure of this two consignments a show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause and explain as to why the goods covered by both the consignments be not confiscated in terms of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the two show cause notices, both dated 26-11-1992 governings the two consignments it was alleged that the goods were imported in contravention of Section 11 of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. It was also mentioned in the said show cause notices that the petitioner had not cleared the goods as well. These proceedings ultimately culminated in the passing of the confiscation order whereby the goods were confiscated by the Additional Collector of Customs absolutely under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The orders confiscating the goods were appealed against by the petitioner and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) having been satisfied that the principles of natural justice were violated by the Additional Collector of Customs in passing the impugned confiscation orders inasmuch as no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to putforth his point of view before the adjudicating authority through personal hearing. It was also observed by the appellate authority that the goods covered by the consignments being OGL Items, their absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act was bad in law. He therefore while setting aside the orders of confiscation remanded the cases to the adjudicating officer to pass a fresh speaking order after granting personal hearing of the petitioner. It was as a consequence of the aforesaid remand orders in both the appeals that the adjudicating officer appears to have decided in March, 1994 to release the goods. The parties are at issue with regard to the actual communication of the order whereby the adjudicating officer decided to release the goods, even though vide a communication dated 11-8-1994 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs addressed to the petitioner it was decided to allow clearance of the goods on payment of duty and other charges. After the petitioners appear to have received the communication dated 11th August, 1994 the disputes started between the parties with regard to the release of the goods in question minus the petitioners' liability to pay Port and Demurrage Charges.
(2.) I have heard the learned Advocates of the parties at a great length with regard to the issues involved in this case. Whereas under Section 48 of the Customs Act it is the obligation of the prescribed Authority to dispose of the goods within 45 days if the goods are not cleared by the importer, the Customs Authority is entitled to seize the goods if there are reasons to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The power to seize goods lies with the Customs Authority under Section 110 of the Customs Act and the power to confiscate the goods has been vested in him under Section 111 of the said Act. In the present case the controversy has arisen because both in the impugned Show Cause Notices and in the impugned Confiscation Orders, the Customs Authorities are not very clear as to whether the confiscation was being done because of the non-clearance of the goods by the petitioners or because the goods were liable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) of the said Act, read with the provisions of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. It does appear, prima facie, that the Customs Authorities did not properly exercise the jurisdiction in confiscating the goods. This is fortified by the findings and observations of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who set aside the impugned Confiscation Orders on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice.
(3.) The point which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the release of the goods without being fastened with the liability of paying Port and Demurrage Charges or not. The occasion to consider this point is the fact as to whether the Customs Authorities were justified in initially seizing the goods and later on confiscating them and if ultimately it is found that the entire exercise done by the Customs Authorities was neither proper nor justified in law, will it be proper still to insist the petitioners on paying Port and Demurrage Charges. Along side this another important question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Port Authority is liable to release the goods in question merely on the issuance of a Retention Certificate by the Customs Authorities, without it being entitled to insist on its right of claiming the Port and Demurrage Charges, notwithstanding the legality of the exercise done by the Customs Authorities.;