UNISILK LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO consignments containing 1779.76 kgs of Mulberry Raw Silk with CIF value of about Rs. 19 lakh landed at the Caluctta Port in December, 1997. The import of Mulberry Raw Silk into the country was restricted and no import was permissible without a valid specific licence. M/s Paramount International were shown as the notified party. The notified party was subsequently sought to be changed to M/s Pretty Designs. Neither M/s Paramount International nor M/s Pretty Designs had valid import licence for the import of these restricted goods. Show cause notice was issued and the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, who confiscated the goods absolutely for violation of the various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Before the confiscation of the above mentioned two consignments, four more consignments containing the similar goods, Mulberry Raw Silk, weighing 7359.397 kgs. with CIF value of about Rs. 69 lakh had similarly landed at the Calcutta Port during April, 1998. The notified party was shown as M/s Pretty Designs who filed four Bills of Entry for their clearance. Inquiries revealed that M/s Pretty Designs had obtained advance licences and DEEC Book, by fraud and that the factory address given by them was fictitious. Their status as manufacturers of silk fabrics/garments was found to be fake. This case was also adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, who confiscated the goods for violation of different provisions of the Act; option was, however, given to get the goods redeemed on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 17 lakh. A penalty of Rs. 7 lakh was also imposed on the importer, M/s Pretty Designs.

(2.) THE present two appeals have been filed by M/s Unisilk Ltd., said to be a company incorporated under the appropriate laws of Hong Kong. The main plea of M/s Unisilk Ltd. in these appeals which had been filed much after the goods had been confiscated and the adjudication proceedings completed, is that the notified party had not made payment to them, they continued to remain the owner of the goods and had a right to get back the goods or to sell the same to any other buyer in India.

(3.) AS both the appeals have reference to common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.