RARE CRAFTS OVERSEAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Export -Seaport) has held that Commissioner of Customs, Chennai has jurisdiction to issue show -cause notice dt. 27.3.2007 under the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of export cargo of red sanders wood in the guise of handicrafts to Singapore (red sanders wood is prohibited for export under the provisions of the Customs Act read with Schedule II of Export Policy and value added products of above wood are restricted for export under licence issued by DGFT subject to certificate from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State from where the stocks were procured as well as other requirements under CITES), proposing confiscation of items made of Padak and proposing imposition of penalty on the exporter, partnership firm and its partners and others.

(2.) THE Commissioner's finding is reproduced herein below:

(3.) I have heard both sides. The case law relied upon by the ld. counsel for the appellants namely Union of India v. Ram Narain Bishwanath : 1997 (96) ELT 224 (SC) and A. Subburaj v. Union of India, 2000 (125) ELT 375 are distinguishable. The first case cited (supra) related to assessed goods and not goods attempted to be smuggled out of India under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the second decision, the court held that the officer who gave the 'let export order' cannot revise his order. The Central Government Standing Counsel for the Revenue was not able to show any provisions to the contrary. However, in the present case, the attempt to export the goods has been alleged to be in contravention of Section 113 and thus liable for confiscation at the exit port viz. Chennai. The issue in this case stands decided by the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Madanlal Steel Industries v. UOI : 1991 (56) ELT 705 (Mad.). The court has held that confiscation proceedings are not controlled by clearance of goods for home consumption or export under Section 47 or Section 51 of the Customs Act. The court has held that ordinarily no action to confiscate the goods cleared for home consumption will be taken but there are exceptions, and action to confiscate the goods does not depend upon clearance of the goods for home consumption or export, but on conditions enumerated under Section 111 as regards improperly imported goods and Section 113 as regards the goods attempted to be improperly exported. The relevant extract of the High Court's order is reproduced herein below: