^CONFISCATION & PENALTY^ Civil Pro- Cons Pen.pdf · Prof.Dippak / IDT Cus/ Civil Proceedings CONFISCATION & PENALTY: SEIZURE OF GOODS – SEC 110 1. Briefly explain with reference

Prof.Dippak / IDT Cus/ Civil Proceedings

CONFISCATION & PENALTY: SEIZURE OF GOODS – SEC 110 1. Briefly explain with reference to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 : Smuggling

(2 marks) Sec 2(39) of Customs Act defines smuggling to mean any act or omission which will render such goods liable for confiscation under

Sec 111 of Sec 113 [Sec 111 provides for circumstances leading to confiscation of imported goods & Sec 113 provides for confiscation of goods attempted to be exported improperly]

Since smuggling has been specifically defined, normal or dictionary meaning shall not be applicable in context of Customs Act [N K BAPNA – 1992 – SC].

N K BAPNA-SC

Goods declared under customs, but value misdeclared: Goods liable to confiscation u/Sec 111 (PO may initiate confiscation) • Even though such goods were openly declared, but since they are liable to confiscation, they will be treated as ‘smuggled goods’. • We cannot go by the dictionary meaning of the word as the Act has a definition clause which adopts, for the word, the same meaning which

it has in Section 2(39) of the Customs Act. 2. Explain briefly: “Every detention is not seizure, but seizure always includes detention in Customs Law.”

(3 Marks) The goods are first detained and then seizure contemplated (ultimate stage is confiscation). In detention, no legal orders are passed.

Hence, detained goods may be released without following formalities. Seizure is affected by passing legal orders. It leads to either confiscation or release of goods, both of which need the orders of Adjudicating Authority. To sum up, there can’t be any seizure without detention; but all detentions needn’t necessarily lead to seizure.

Author: 1. ‘Detain’ means ‘to keep back, withhold; especially to keep back, what is due or claimed’; and ‘Seize’ means ‘to be in possession of, take

possession of (goods) in pursuance of an order, to take possession of by force’. DETENTION SEIZURE

Denial of access to the owner of the property (or the person who possesses the property) at a particular point of time by a legal order/notice is called DETENTION. The purpose of detention is to prevent the property being removed or used by the owner of the property (or the person who possesses the property)

Seizure is taking over possession of the goods from the owner of the property (or the person who possesses the property).

In detention the possession of the property is not taken away by the department.

In seizure the possession is taken away by the department.

When it is suspected that the goods are liable to confiscation then detention order is issued. As soon as the ‘suspicion’ is converted into ‘reasonable belief’ after enquiry/investigation the detained goods are formally seized because seizure can be made only on the basis of ‘reasonable belief’ that the goods are liable to confiscation.

. 2. Significance of differentiation between ‘detention’ and ‘seizure’: Sec 110 provides for unconditional release of goods if SCN proposing

confiscation is not given within 6 months (or extended period). The time limitation shall be counted from date of SEIZURE (and not date of detention) [PRO MUSICAL - 2008 – MAD HC].

3. The goods imported by Perfect Ltd, the assessee, were detained on 14th Sep, 2013. However, the assessee could not produce the

documentary evidence. Consequently, the impugned goods were seized on 8th Feb, 2009. The department issued a SCN to the assessee on 15th May, 2014. The assessee put forth A QUESTION OF LIMITATION alleging that the impugned SCN had been issued after a period of 6 months. Perfect ltd has sought for quashing of the SCN and also for the return of the goods. Examine?

[CS Final, Dec 2009 – 5 Marks] Under the given facts, SCN has been served to Perfect Ltd proposing confiscation of goods alleged to be smuggled goods. The assessee

has challenged the validity of SCN on sole ground of limitation only. It shall be noted that Sec 110 provides for service of SCN within a period of 6 months from the date of seizure if goods are

proposed to be confiscated. In the case of PRO MUSICAL-2008-MAD, Madras HC held that ‘Detention is different from Seizure. Time limit of 6 months has to be counted from DATE OF SEIZURE and not from DATE OF DETENTION.’

In the case before us, SCN has been issued within 6 months from date of seizure (6 months from 8th Feb, 2009 is expiring on 8th Aug, 2014). Thus, SCN proposing confiscation is valid. Perfect ltd is not entitled to claim return of goods.


Note: 1. Sec 110 provides for release of goods if notice is not GIVEN within 6 months of date of seizure.

It shall be noted that time limit of ‘6 Months’ (as mandated by Sec 110) is for SERVICE OF SCN (and not for issuance of SCN)

PURUSHOTTAM JAJODIA – 2014- Delhi HC [ICAI RTP MAY 2015 / NOV 2015] Mere issuance or dispatch of notice would not amount to 'giving' of notice, instead, 'giving' would be complete if the notice reached the person concerned (or if notice after having been tendered, had been refused). Author: Considering the fact that SCN has been issued in May, 2014 itself, its service will be very well in advance before the expiry of limitation

period of 6 months. Thus, no discussion is required from that angle.

Note: Seized goods shall be kept by the Dept till confiscation proceedings are concluded. In the event confiscation order is passed in respect of seized goods, Dept shall still wait till expiry of period allowed for filing of appeal against such confiscation order. Issue: If seized goods are sold by Department pending outcome of appeal order and seizure is upheld illegal by Appellate Authorities, then Department shall be bound to return

… goods so sold (or their equivalent value on date of seizure) OR … sale proceeds realized by department from the sale.

AHSAN WARIS – 2014- Calcutta HC In case where the seizure made by the departmental authorities is later found as illegal seizure, and before such finding and before the expiration of the statutory period available to file an appeal, the authorities sells the seized goods at a much lower value, … then the authorities are legally bound to pay to the assessee the amount equivalent to the value of goods which was assessed at the

time of seizure and not the value which was received from the sale of such goods.

4. The customs officers seized foreign origin gold from the possession of a passenger coming from Dubai on 10.1.2012. The customs

officer issued a SCN for confiscation of gold and imposition of penalty on 10/8/2012. Is the person eligible for the return of the goods? Please answer with the help of case law, if any.

(2 Marks) Under the given facts, goods were seized by Customs Officer but no confiscation proceedings have been initiated till 10/7/2006, i.e.,

within of 6 months from the date of seizure. No confiscation proceedings have been initiated within of 6 months from the date of seizure. Failure to initiate confiscation

proceedings entitles the assessee to claim return thereof.

[Note: It shall be noted that though extension of aforesaid period of 6 months is also permissible in terms of Sec 110, extension can only be on the basis of sufficient cause justifying the extension. From the facts of the given question, no sufficient cause is apparent and therefore, assessee is eligible for the return of the goods]

Note: Student shall note that ‘service of notice’ shall takes place within limitation – PURSHOTTAM JAJODIA – 2014- DLEHI HC

PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF SEIZED GOODS – SEC 110-A (Expected) 5. Goods imported by assessee seized by PO in terms of Sec 110. Assessee made request for provisional release of goods in terms of

Sec 110-A (executing bond). 6 months expired, but no SCN proposing confiscation issued u/s 124. Sec 110 provides for unconditional release of goods if PO failed to issue SCN u/s 124 within 6 months. Assessee had already

got the goods release but that was under Bond. Now, assessee seeks unconditional release of his goods (i.e., release of his bond- as no need of bond now).

Discuss whether the concept of unconditional release of goods (upon expiry of 6 months from date of seizure) as specified u/s 110 can be read into Sec 110-A (provisional release cases) also?

On identical facts, in case of JATIN AHUJA- 2012, DELHI HC held that Sec 110-A is by way of an interim relief, enabling release of goods (for instance, when they are fast moving or perishables). The existence of such power does not in any way impede or limit the operation of mandatory provisions of Sec 110, particularly the time limit of issuance of SCN, in so far as it relates to the statutory dissolution of the seizure. Further, there are no internal indications in Sec 110-A that the amplitude of Sec 110 is curtailed by Sec 110-A. In light of above judgment, assessee can claim unconditional release of goods if no SCN has been issued to him within 6 months from date of seizure.


Author’s Note: Simply putting, the provision as to ‘unconditional release of goods as stipulated u/Sec 110’ can be read into provisions of Sec 110-A (provisional release of seized goods). Thus, if somebody get his goods released provisionally (under bond) and no SCN (proposing confiscation is issued u/s 124) within 6 months (as stipulated u/s 110), then such importer can get his bond cancelled and thus, making the release of goods unconditional. P&H HC has rendered latest judgment on this: AKANKSHA SYNTEX (P) LTD. – 2014 –P&H HC (Writ) Right to claim unconditional release of seized goods u/Sec 110 is not curtailed by Sec 110-A : Any order for provisional release shall not take away the right of the assessee u/Sec 110(2) read with Sec 124 of the Act. Where no action is initiated by way of issuance of SCN u/Sec 124(a) of the Act within 6 months or extended period stipulated u/Sec 110(2) of the Act, the person from whose possession the goods were seized becomes entitled to their return. Note: However, it must be noted here that such release does not have the impact of protection from confiscation proceedings. Sec 124 SCN (proposing confiscation proceedings) can be issued later on also- as no time limit is associated with Sec 124 SCN [so was held by SC in case of CHARAN DAS MALHOTRA- 1972-SC]. This has been clarified by CBEC recently through CIRCULAR NO 07/2013]

CONFISCATION OF GOODS SEC 124 NOTICE 6. Briefly discuss, the procedure for confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty u/Sec 124 of the Customs Act, 1962?

(Nov 2008- 2 Marks) Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that before confiscating goods or imposing any penalty on any person, a Show Cause

Notice (SCN) must be issued to the owner of goods giving grounds for confiscation or imposition of penalty and he should be given an opportunity to make representation and being heard. The show cause notice can be issued only with the prior approval of the officer of customs not below the rank of AC.

The notice and the representation, at the request of the person concerned, can be oral. 7. A Customs Officer has issued an order for confiscation of goods. However, the owner of the goods alleges that the order is not

valid as no show cause notice has been issued. Examine the situation with reference to section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that before confiscating goods or imposing any penalty on any person, a show cause

notice [SCN] must be issued to the owner of goods giving grounds for confiscation or imposition of penalty and he should be given an opportunity to make representation and being heard.

Therefore, since no show cause notice has been issued, the order of confiscation of goods is not valid. BURDEN OF PROOF- SEC 123

8. State the ingredients in the case of seizure under Section 123 of Customs Act.

(4 Marks) As a general principle of law, in any proceeding the burden of proof shall be upon the party pressing allegation against the other party.

However, this burden of proof can be shifted to other party by making specific provisions in this regard. In Customs Laws, Sec 123 also shifts burden of proof in relation to certain goods involved in confiscation proceeding.

Under Section 123 of the Act there is a presumption that seized goods are smuggled when they are reasonably believed to be smuggled. But, Sec 123 applies only to gold, watches & other notified goods. In respect of such goods, department is relieved of its burden of proving the “smuggled character” of the goods and can proceed for confiscation of goods. If the assessee wishes to avoid confiscation of such goods, then he shall prove that goods are not of smuggled character.

Another significance of goods notified u/Sec 123 .

• Facility of settlement of cases through Settlement Commission (& getting immunity from prosecution and penalties) This facility is not available in respect of goods notified u/Sec 123.

[For details, refer chapter of SETTLEMENT COMMISSION – (COMMON CHAPTER MODULE)] 9. The custom officers seized non-notified goods, namely cameras, Photo films of foreign origin valued at Rs. 2 lakhs from the

possession of the Mr. K.P.S. when he was traveling from the Chandigarh to Shimla under the belief that the goods were smuggled goods.

Prof.Dippak / IDT Cus/ Civil Proceedings Mr. K.P.S. did not have any vouchers in relation to goods. The defence of Mr. KPS is that he had purchased the goods from

hawkers at Chandigarh for being sold at Shimla from his shop and the goods are not smuggled goods. Please discuss whether these goods were liable to confiscation under the customs act.

(4 Marks) As per the facts of the case given to us, certain goods of foreign origin have been seized from the possession of a passenger by the

Customs Officer. The goods have been alleged to be smuggled goods and accordingly, proposed to be confiscated. The goods under consideration are not covered by Sec 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The issue for consideration before us is whether the seized goods are liable to confiscation based upon mere allegation that goods are smuggled goods or Customs department is required to furnish additional corroborative evidence to justify smuggled nature of goods for upholding confiscation of goods.

The issue depends upon Sec 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Under Section 123 of the Act there is a presumption that seized goods are smuggled when they are reasonably believed to be smuggled. But, Sec 123 applies only to gold, watches & other notified goods. Undisputedly, the seized goods are not covered by Sec 123.Thus, the burden of proving that the goods are “smuggled goods” lies with the Revenue. In case of PRADIP KUMAR AGARWAL– 2003 – Tribunal has held that “when the burden of proof is on the revenue, the same is to be discharged affirmatively/conclusively beyond an iota (inch) of doubt. Mere non-production of documents showing legal importation or acquisition of goods by the claimant can’t ispo-facto (by itself) lead to the conclusion that goods are smuggled goods”.

In the case before us, M/S KPS has failed to produce the supporting invoice. But apart from that, no additional corroborative evidence has been tendered by the Department to prove the smuggled nature of goods and thus, for want of evidence, goods are not liable to confiscation.

10. Kishan purchased cameras made in Japan from a hawker in Delhi. He did not have any document relating to purchase. While he

was traveling from Delhi to Jaipur, the Customs Officer seized the cameras under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods. Subsequently, they were confiscated. Cameras are not notified goods u/s 123 of Customs Act, Discuss the validity of confiscation of cameras in the light of decided case law, if any.

[CS Final, June 2006] The identical issue has been considered by Karnatka HC recently in case of T.V. MOHAMMED-2014. In that case, it was held that

• in cases to which section 123 is not attracted (i.e., seized goods which are not notified u/sec 123), initial burden of proving that goods are smuggled goods is on Department and under no circumstances, it changes;

• But when in discharge of its burden, department adduces evidence, then burden of proof shifts on the assessee/importer. • Assessee/importer being a trader/hawker must have document of purchase with him or otherwise he should offer reasonable

explanation for that. In the absence of any of these, benefit of presumption of innocence cannot be extended to them and the only irresistible conclusion of this is that goods are smuggled goods liable to confiscation.

RELEASE OF GOODS ON PAYMENT OF REDEMPTION FINE- SEC 125 11. What is 'redemption fine' in lieu of confiscation? What is the limit for imposing redemption fine under Section 125(1) of the

Customs Act, 1962? (May 2009- 4 Marks)

Redemption fine is imposed in terms of Sec 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine under the said provision becomes leviable in lieu of confiscation. It is an option given to the importer either to allow the goods to be confiscated or to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation. If the party to whom such option is granted chooses to avail of this option, then he can upon payment of such fine get the goods released. However, Sec 125 clearly stipulates that when redemption fine is imposed, then owner shall, in addition, shall pay the import duty as payable in respect of such goods.

The limit of redemption fine is as stated below: a) In case of imported goods, the maximum amount of redemption fine shall be market price* of the goods as reduced by amount of

import duty; b) In case of export goods, the maximum amount of redemption fine shall be the market price* of the goods. *CANBO ELECTRONICS (P.) LTD.- 2015- MADRAS HC It is requirement of law that redemption fine should not exceed 'market price of confiscated goods less duty' and such market price can be obtained only on market survey, which must be done prior to determining redemption fine.

12. Briefly write a note on whether an exporter who has been held guilty of exporting ‘prohibited goods’ is entitled to an option to pay

fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the Custom Act, 1962. (May 2010- 5 Marks)

Prof.Dippak / IDT Cus/ Civil Proceedings Sec 125 contains provisions relating to ‘option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation’ (such fine is also known as ‘redemption fine’). It

provides that: i) In case confiscated goods are other than ‘prohibited goods’, then PO shall grant the owner of the goods to get the confiscated

goods redeemed by paying such fine. ii) In case confiscated goods are ‘prohibited goods’, then PO may grant the owner of the goods to get the confiscated goods

redeemed by paying such fine. .

As is evident, exporter is not entitled to an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation when he is found guilty of exporting ‘prohibited goods’.

Author: PROHIBITED GOODS have been defined u/Sec 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962 to mean any goods the import or export of which is prohibited under Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force but excluding goods in respect of which conditions associated for import or export have been fulfilled. Thus, goods the import of which is allowed conditionally shall be treated as ‘prohibited goods’ if associated conditions are not-fulfilled. In relation to such goods, grant of option to pay ‘redemption fine’ shall be discretionary for adjudicating officer. ABAN EXIM (P.) LTD- 2014- ALLAHABAD HC Tyre / Tubes without BIS certification - Prohibited goods - Option of redemption fine is discretionary and not mandatory.

Held: “Since import of Tyres and Tubes for Automotive Vehicles is subject to condition of BIS certification, any import without such certification would prima facie be prohibited and therefore, option of redemption fine in respect thereof would be discretionary.”

Whether ‘currency notes’ in excess of permissible limits under FEMA provisions can be said to be ‘prohibited goods’ and thus, can be confiscated absolutely? PERINGATIL HAMZA– 2014 –TRI (LB) Facts Assessee was intercepted at Sahar Airport, Mumbai. During search, during search, Indian currency of Rs. 24,17,500/- was

found with the appellant which was not declared or permitted by RBI for export. Absolute confiscation (i.e., confiscation without associated option of payment of redemption fine u/Sec 125) was ordered. Penalty was also imposed.

Issue Whether action of ‘absolute confiscation’ is valid in terms of Sec 125 of Customs Act, 1962? Held • Export of Indian currency in excess of 25,000 is ‘restricted’ under FEMA, 2009: As per the Regulation 3 of FEMA

Regulations, a person may take Indian currency outside India not exceeding Rs.25,000/- per person. If the said person is willing to carry Indian currency more than Rs 25,000/- outside India is required to seek permission from the RBI and the RBI being satisfied may grant permission to carry the Indian currency more than Rs 25,000/- on certain terms and conditions. Therefore, as these Regulations are governed by FEMA, 1999, which puts restrictions on the person not to carry Indian currency more than Rs 25,000/- without permission of the RBI. In this term, the Indian currency more than Rs 25,000/- to take outside India is restricted goods.

• ‘Restricted Goods’ = Prohibited Goods, if conditions are not complied with: In this case the Regulation are made under FEMA, 1999, for providing how much currency can be taken outside India without any restrictions. In this terms, we hold that the currency of more than Rs 25,000/- sought to be taken outside India is prohibited goods. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the Indian currency of Rs. 24,17,500/-.

• ‘Prohibited Goods’ = Sec 125 authorizes ‘absolute confiscation’ of prohibited goods, thus, order cannot be faulted with: In case a person attempted to export Indian currency outside India without permission of RBI more than Rs. 25,000/-, then Indian currency can be absolutely confiscated and it is discretion of the proper officer in the facts and circumstances of the case be allowed to redeem on payment of redemption.

13. Rapid Ltd. imported non-prohibited goods from China. They had under-valued the goods to the extent of 50%. The Commissioner of

Customs has ordered absolute confiscation of the said goods. Whether the prayer of Rapid Ltd. for release of goods on payment of certain fine is justified under the Customs Act, 1962?

[CS Final, June 2004 --- 3 Marks] Redemption fine is imposed in terms of Sec 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine under the said provision becomes

leviable in lieu of confiscation. It is an option given to the importer either to allow the goods to be confiscated or to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation and get the goods released. Grant of such option is mandatory on the part of customs officer. Confiscation order passed without grant of such option (which is popularly termed as “Absolute Confiscation Order”) shall be void. However, discretion has been conferred on the officer to give the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in cases of prohibited goods. Thus, absolute confiscation is possible only of “prohibited goods”

Under the given facts, goods involved are “non-prohibited goods”. Therefore, in terms of provisions of Sec 125 of the Customs Act, the officer is obliged to give such an option to the importer. Extent of under-valuation by the importer can’t have any impact on the right of the importer regarding grant of such option. Thus, the order of absolute confiscation can’t be held to be a valid confiscation order. Such order is challengeable before Appellate Authority and the prayer of Rapid Ltd for release of goods on payment of redemption fine is justified under Customs Act.

Prof.Dippak / IDT Cus/ Civil Proceedings 14. A person makes an unauthorized import of goods liable to confiscation. After adjudication, Assistant Commissioner provides an

option to the importer to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. It is proposed to impose a fine (in lieu of confiscation) equal to 50% of margin of profit. From the following particulars calculate the MAXIMUM AMOUNT of fine that can be imposed ---

Assessable Value Total Duty payable Market Value

50,000/- 20,000/-

1,00,000/- Also calculate the AMOUNT OF FINE and THE TOTAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE by the importer to clear the consignment.

(6 Marks) Maximum Amount of “redemption fine” that can be imposed in terms of Sec 125 of Customs Act: = [Market value of the confiscated goods less import duty payable thereon] = [Rs 1,00,000 less 20,000] = Rs 80,000/- Actual amount of “redemption fine” as imposed in this particular case: = 50% of “Margin of Profit” = 50% of [Market value of the confiscated goods less Landed cost of the imported goods (*)] = 50% of [Rs 1,00,000 less 70,000] = Rs 15,000/-

(*) Landed Cost of Imported Goods = Sec 14(1) Assessable Value + Associated Customs Duties = (Rs 50,000/- + Rs 20,000/-) = Rs 70,000/-

Total Payment to be made by the party to clear the consignment: = Redemption Fine (as imposed in terms of Sec 125(1) of the Customs Act) + Import Duties (payable in terms of Sec 125(2)

= Rs 15,000 + Rs 20,000 = Rs 35,000/-

Note: Redemption fine is imposed in terms of Sec 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine under the said provision becomes leviable in lieu of confiscation. It is an option given to the importer either to allow the goods to be confiscated or to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation. If the party to whom such option is granted chooses to avail of this option, then he can upon payment of such fine get the goods released. However, Sec 125(2) clearly stipulates that when redemption fine is imposed, then owner shall, in addition, shall pay the import duty as payable in respect of such goods.

15. What do you understand by redemption fine? State the provision relating to imposition of such fine under the Customs Act, 1962.

(CWA Final, Dec 2004 -5 Marks)] Redemption fine is imposed in terms of Sec 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine under the said provision becomes

leviable in lieu of confiscation. It is an option given to the importer either to allow the goods to be confiscated or to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation. If the party to whom such option is granted chooses to avail of this option, then he can upon payment of such fine get the goods released.

The following are the basic provisions relating to imposition of redemption fine: i) The option to pay redemption fine in lieu of confiscation shall be granted to the owner of the goods. However, where such

owner is not known, then such option shall be given to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. ii) Such an option shall necessarily be granted. In simple words, grant of such option is mandatory on the part of customs officer.

Confiscation order passed without grant of such option (which is popularly termed as “Absolute Confiscation Order”) shall be void. However, discretion has been conferred on the officer to give the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in cases of prohibited goods. Thus, absolute confiscation is possible only of “prohibited goods”

iii) Sec 125 also stipulates the maximum amount of redemption fine that can be imposed. The maximum amount of redemption fine can’t exceed the market value of the confiscated goods. In case of imported goods, redemption fine shalln’t exceed the market value of imported goods as reduced by the import duties leviable thereon.

iv) Further, Sec 125 clearly stipulates that when redemption fine is imposed**, then owner shall, in addition, shall pay the import duty as payable in respect of such goods**.

.

Author: Interpretation of word ‘imposed’ as used u/Sec 125(2): Sec 125(2) provides that ‘Where any fine in lieu of confiscation is imposed u/sub section (1), the owner of such goods or the person shall, in addition, be liable to any DUTY payable in respect of such goods’

Where confiscation proceeding is initiated u/Sec 124 and confiscation order is passed granting option to redeem the goods upon payment of fine, then whether passing of such order tantamount to ‘imposition of fine’ and thereby, making the importer liable to pay duty even if he is opting not to pay redemption fine?


FORTIS HOSPITAL LTD - 2015 –SC Issue In case the imported goods are confiscated, and goods are not redeemed by paying fine, whether Sec 125(2)) made the

importer liable to pay customs duty?

Held NO [If goods are not redeemed, Sec 125(2) does not make importer liable to pay import duty] - When confiscation (adjudication) order is passed giving option of redeeming the goods upon payment of redemption fine, then

payment of such fine is contingent (and such contingency will arise only if importer exercise his option to pay fine and redeem the goods) and thus, such fine cannot be said to be ‘imposed’ within the meaning of Sec 125(2).

- Sec 124 notice is only about confiscation and penalty and it does not deal with payment of import duty. No doubt, import duty becomes payable by virtue of Sec 125(2), but that happens only when importer decides to pay fine and redeem goods. If notice (importer) does not exercise the option, then duty would not be payable automatically.

- However, it is not that department is not without any remedy. Notice can be issued for payment of duty, independent of the action which is permissible u/Sec 124 and 125 of the Customs Act. For recovery of duty, separate and independent action shall be taken by Dept.

16. A person makes an unauthorized import of goods whose CIF price is US $5 per piece. The other particulars are as under:

Exchange rate BCD CVD EC & SHEC Spl CVD

1 $= Rs 50 10%

12.5% 3% 4%

Market price in India 5,00,000 Customs authorities have confiscated the said goods and have given an option to importer to get the goods released/redeemed by

paying fine equal to 50% of the maximum permissible in law. Compute the amount of fine. Should the importer accept the option?

Computation of AV AV= CIF + 1% = (1,000 * $5 * 50) + 1% = 2,52,500 Computation of ID BCD = (2,52,500 * 10%) = 25,250

CVD = (2,52,500 + 25,250) * 12.5% = 34,719 EC & SHEC = (25,250 + 34,719) *3% = 1799 Spl CVD = (252,500 + 25,250 + 34,719 + 1799)

*4% = 12,571

Total ID payable= = 74, 339 Computation of Max Redemption fine = [Mkt Price of such goods – ID leviable thereon]

= [5,00,000 – 74,339] = 4,25,661

Computation of Redemption fine in question

= 50% of max. imposable redemption fine = 50% of 4,25,661

= 2,12,831

.

Evaluation of decision as to acceptance/rejection of redeeming the goods

Option-1 [Redeeming goods by opting

to pay redemption fine]

Option-2 [Not Redeeming goods by

opting not to pay redemption fine]

Market price of goods 5,00,000 ----- Less: (1) Customs Duty (2) Redemption Fine

(74,339) (2,12,831)

(74,339) ----

Net amount 2,12,830 (74,339) Less: Landed cost of imported goods

[Purchase price paid to supplier (CIF) + Landing Charges] (2,52,500) (2,52,500)

Net Gain/Loss on unauthorized import 39,670 (3,26,839) .

It is advisable to opt for redemption fine.

Recent Issue: Whether refund of redemption fine can be claimed if later on importer decides not to redeem the goods? (Imp)


** BHARAT M. SHAH- 2014- SC Facts Goods imported – confiscated due to some reason

Imported opted for redemption of goods – Redemption fine paid PO asked importer to pay ‘duty’ also (since as per Sec 125(2)- import duty is payable additionally) Importer does not have any money – since he was not in position to pay customs duty, he was not desirous of redeeming the goods- He requested for refund of ‘redemption fine’ Dept denying refund of ‘redemption fine’

Held If the assessee pays redemption fine to the department so as to release the confiscated goods from the department, then it is necessary to pay the customs duty also as payable for the goods so as to release the goods. Unless payment of duty is also made, goods cannot be redeemed.

However, since importer has refused to redeem the goods from the Department, then he shall be granted the refund of redemption fine paid by him.

Needless to say that goods will remain confiscated goods and Customs Department free to take appropriate action. .

[Expected] [Option to redeem goods – Whether carrier of such goods is entitled to such option?] 17. Mr A boarded Indian Airlines flight from Jaipur to Dubai. He was found to be carrying indian currency of Rs 20 lakhs (much beyond

the RBI permissible limit of Rs 25,000). He admitted that Mr V had given him the said currency with the direction to deliver the same to Mr C in dubai. The currency was confiscated. Option to redeem was granted to Mr A. Revenue objected to grant of such option on the ground that Mr A, not being owner, cannot be granted option to redeem the goods.

Whether Mr A, carried of goods (currency), shall be entitled to grant of option to redeem goods?

Currency is also ‘goods’ as per definition of goods given u/Sec 2 of Customs Act, 1962. Currency carried in excess of RBI permissible limit are ‘prohibited goods’ and thus, liable to confiscation. In respect of prohibited goods, grant of option to pay redemption fine is discretionary for adjudicating authority and in instant case, adjudicating authority has granted such option using his discretion. However, the revenue has objected to such grant of option on the grant that such option can be granted only to the owner of the goods and where such owner is not known, then to the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized. As per revenue, in the instant case, owner of the goods is known (Mr V) and thus, Mr A (the person from whose possession currency has been seized) is not entitled to claim grant of option to pay redemption fine. On identical facts, in recent case of RAM KUMAR- 2015-DELHI HC, it has been held by Delhi HC that carrier of goods cannot not treated as the owner of the said currency and as far as ownership is concerned, it is clearly implied that the ownership belonged to other person (Mr V), who had given the said currency to the applicant for being taken to Dubai. The option to pay redemption fine cannot be granted to carrier of goods.

Grant of option to pay ‘redemption fine’ – to whom ‘OWNER’ or ‘person from whose possession goods are seized RAM KUMAR– 2015 –DELHI HC [WRIT] Facts Ram Kumar was intercepted at DELHI Airport.

Upon search, Indian Currency of Rs 19,80,000 and 21,900 UAE were recovered from his baggage. He was arrested and his statement was taken in which he admitted that Mr Vinod Kumar had given him the said currency with the direction to deliver the aforesaid amount to one Rakesh, who would collect money from him in Dubai. Also, currency in excess of RBI permissible limit, was ‘prohibited goods’ and thus, confiscated. Adjudicating authority, however, grant an option to Ram Kumar to redeem the currency upon payment of redemption fine of Rs 1,50,000 only.

In review proceeding, Dept filed appeals to CCE (Appeals) against aforesaid order but lost the case in first appeal. Then, revision application was filed with CG in terms of Sec 129-DD of Customs Act, 1962. Therein, CG held that • Ram Kumar was mere carrier of currency, which he was taking out of India for monetary consideration. • He was poor, illiterate and driver by profession. • Ownership of currency does not belong to him; ownership belonged to Vinod Kumar Saini. • ‘Adjudicating Authority had erred in allowing redemption of currency to Ram Kumar u/Sec 125 as Ram Kumar is mere carrier

of goods and currencies don’t belong to him’

Assessee had filed writ against order of revisionary authority. As per assessee, Sec 125 permits grant of option to owner, and where owner is not known, to the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized and thus, grant of option was proper.

Issue Whether grant of option to release foreign currency to Ram Kumar, who is not the owner, is proper? Held Carrier cannot claim option of ‘redemption fine’ – he being carrier, not owner of goods

• In facts and circumstances, order of revisionary authority is just and proper. • When Ram Kumar is not claiming himself as owner, then such option cannot be granted to him.

Prof.Dippak / IDT Cus/ Civil Proceedings SEPCIAL ISSUES

[Pending appeal against confiscation order, sale of confiscated goods - Validity of sale?] 18. The Customs authorities had confiscated the gold carried by Mr. Lovegold. Mr. Lovegold informed the customs authorities that he

was filing an appeal against the order of confiscation. The Customs authorities informed Mr. Lovegold that the confiscated goods had been handed over to the warehouse of the customs house for disposal and consequently auctioned the confiscated goods. Discuss briefly the validity of the action taken by the customs authorities with the help of decided case law.

Also discuss the validity of the claim of Mr. Lovegold in seeking MARKET VALUE of the confiscated goods and whether he is liable to pay the duty, fine and penalty imposed by the original authority.

(May 2011- 5 Marks) Validity of auction sale pending appeal: Department’s action of sale of confiscated goods in respect of which appellant had filed

an appeal is not valid. In the given case, the very moment the goods were confiscated, the assessed communicated his intention to appeal against confiscation order. That being the case, Department must not have proceeded with sale of goods pending appeal. On identical facts, same view was taken by Bombay HC in case of SHABIR AHMED ABDUL REHMAN-2009.

Validity of Claim of market value of confiscated goods: No, the importer is not right in claiming market value of the confiscated goods. He is entitled to the entire sale proceeds. However, his liability to fine and penalty shall remain intact.

Liability of Duty: He is also liable to pay import duty. Since he has imported, he is liable to import duty. Contrary to the general belief, even if goods are not redeemed, duty is payable as Sec 125 does not make any provision that if redemption option is not exercised, duty is not payable. [FORTIS HOSPITAL LTD- 2015-SC]

REDEMPTION FINE IMPOSITION: AVAILABILITY OF GOODS FOR CONFISCATION

• “Redemption fine” is the option given by the adjudicating authority to the person whose goods are confiscated, to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.

• It shall be remembered that redemption fine can be imposed only when goods can be confiscated and goods can be confiscated only if they are available for seizure and consequent confiscation. [FINESSE CREATION INC. - 2009 - BOM. HC] o Principle is that goods cannot be confiscated if they have been released.

o However, there is an exception to above principle. The exception is that even released goods can be confiscated goods if they were released on bond. If goods were released on bond, it is as if goods are available (In other words, if goods were released without bond, they cannot be said to be available for confiscation) [WESTON COMPONENTS LTD. – 2000 – SC]

TABULAR ANALYSIS

Goods improperly imported Redemption Fine

Imposition

Remarks

1) Seized & Confiscated Yes ------ 2) ID paid and cleared for H/C – subsequently,

seized & confiscated (as goods available with importer)

Yes ------

3) ID paid and cleared for H/C – subsequently, sought to be seized & confiscated but cannot be (as goods not available with importer)

No FINESSE CREATION INC. -2009- Bombay HC • Redemption fine can only be imposed when the goods are

available and can be redeemed. The reason is that if the goods are not available, they cannot be confiscated and consequently, cannot be redeemed. Once goods cannot be redeemed, redemption fine cannot be imposed

4) Seized u/Sec 110 But released provisionally (as importer executed bond for provisional release u/Sec 110-A) subsequently, sought to be confiscated but cannot be (as goods not available with importer)

Yes WESTON COMPONENTS LTD. – 2000 - SC • Even if the goods are released but release is under bond, then

goods can be confiscated and redemption fine can be imposed. ATLAS CASTING – 2005- TRI • If goods were provisionally released, goods can be confiscated

and bond enforced, if appellant fails to produce goods as agreed in the bond executed

INDO DAEIN LEATHER – 2011- TRI • If goods are released under bond, the bond or bank guarantee

represents goods and hence goods can be confiscated and


redemption fine can be imposed. 5) Seized u/Sec 110

But released unconditionally (as Sec 124 proposing confiscation not given within 6 months) Subsequently, sought to be confiscated but cannot be (as goods not available with importer)

No

. 19. M/s SRT Ltd. had imported certain goods and got them cleared for home consumption. Later the Customs Department found that the goods have been improperly imported and are liable for confiscation u/Sec 111 of

the Customs Act, 1962 even though the same are cleared and not available for the seizure. The Customs Department has imposed penalty u/Sec 112 and redemption fine u/Sec 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Discuss with a brief note whether the penal action and redemption fine can be legally upheld in the facts of the case. (Nov 2011- Marks 3)

• Imposition of Redemption Fine in respect of goods which are not available for seizure o It is settled judicial principle that redemption fine can only be imposed when the goods are available and can be redeemed.

The reason is that if the goods are not available, they cannot be confiscated and consequently, cannot be redeemed. Once goods cannot be redeemed, redemption fine cannot be imposed [Same view recently endorsed by Bombay HC in case of FINESSE CREATION INC. -2009- Bombay HC]

o In the case before us, goods were unconditionally release to importer and not under bond. Thus, there can be no confiscation of such goods and thus, no redemption fine can be imposed. Thus, in given case, action of imposition of redemption fine by PO is not legally valid.

• Imposition of Penalty in respect of goods which are not available for seizure

o Improper importation of goods makes them liable for confiscation u/Sec 111. Sec 112 provides for imposition of penalty in respect of goods liable to confiscation u/Sec 111.

o It has been held by judiciary that ‘power to adjudicate upon for imposition of penalty for improper importation springs from liability to confiscate and not actual confiscation. Actual confiscation of goods is not necessary to impose penalty u/s 112 of Customs Act. [SUNSUI INDIA - 2005 –TRI].

o In other words, penalty u/Sec 112 can be imposed inter alia when a person omits to do any act which would render such goods liable for confiscation u/Sec 111.

o In the case before us, there is no challenge as to the fact that goods were liable to confiscation (though due to non-availability, they cannot be confiscated). Thus, imposition of penalty u/Sec 112 is legally valid.

20. Importer BOPP Ltd. imported two consignments of product X which were allowed to be cleared for home consumption on

execution of a bond undertaking to produce license within a month. Since appellants failed to fulfill the obligation, proceedings were initiated which culminated in confiscation of the goods u/Sec 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty on the importer u/Sec 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.

Examine whether provisionally released goods can be confiscated and penalty imposed thereupon?

• Imposition of Redemption Fine in respect of goods which were released under Bond o It is settled judicial principle that redemption fine can only be imposed when the goods are available and can be redeemed.

The reason is that if the goods are not available, they cannot be confiscated and consequently, cannot be redeemed. Once goods cannot be redeemed, redemption fine cannot be imposed.

o However, at same time, Hon’ble SC in case of WESTON COMPONENTS LTD- 2000 has held that even if the goods are released but release is under bond, then goods can be confiscated and redemption fine can be imposed.

o In the case before us, goods were released under bond. Thus, there can be confiscation of such goods and thus, redemption fine can also be imposed.

• Imposition of Penalty in respect of goods which are not available for seizure

o Same as discussed in above question.

21. Mr. X is a dealer of smuggled goods. However, he himself does not import the goods. Duty has been demanded from

Mr. X under sections 28 and 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 although no smuggled goods have been seized from him. Discuss, with the help of a decided case law, if any whether such demand of duty is valid in law.


[ICAI RTP, May 2015] The issue involved in the given case is whether customs duty can be demanded under section 28 and/or section 125(2) of

the Customs Act, 1962 from a person dealing in smuggled goods when no such goods are seized from him. Recently, the Karnataka High Court addressed this issue in the case of DINESH CHHAJER 2014. In the instant case, the High Court made the following significant observations:- (i) Section 28 applies to a case where the goods are imported by an importer and the duty is not paid in accordance with

law, for which a notice of demand is issued on the person. In case of notice demanding duty under section 125(2), firstly the goods should have been confiscated and the duty demandable is in addition to the fine payable under section 125(1) in respect of confiscated goods. Thus, notices issued under sections 28 and 125(2) are not identical and fall into completely different areas.

(ii) The material on record disclosed that the assessee did not import the goods but was only a dealer of the smuggled goods. Therefore, there was no obligation cast on him under the Act to pay duty. Thus, the notice issued under section 28 of the Act to the assessee is unsustainable as he is not the person who is chargeable to duty under the Act.

(iii) Since no goods were seized, there could not be any confiscation and in the absence of a confiscation, question of payment of duty by the person who is the owner of the goods or from whose possession the goods are seized, does not arise. Based on the above observations, the High Court held that no duty is leviable against the assessee as he is neither the importer of the goods nor was in possession of any goods.

In the given case, Mr. X is only a dealer of smuggled goods; he is not the importer of these goods and also no such goods have been seized from him. Therefore, applying the ratio of the above mentioned decision to the given situation, it can be concluded that customs duty under section 28 and/or section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be demanded from Mr. X.

PENAL PROVISIONS [Sec 112 & 114 – both amended by FA, 2015]

Let us have at the following customs provisions: DEMAND OF DUTY Sec 28 Recovery of duties not levied or short levied or erroneously

refunded • SCN (1 Year / 5 years) • Demand Order

Sec 28-AA Interest on delayed payment of duty • Interest @18% p.a. Sec 114-A Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases.

(mala-fide case only) • Penalty = 100% of duty

CONFISCATION Sec 111 Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. Sec 112 Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. Sec 113 Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly

exported, etc. Sec 114 Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly, etc.

. 22. State the penalties imposable u/Sec 112 in respect of goods improperly imported.

Under sec 112, penalties can be imposed on following: (a) A person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to

confiscation u/Sec 111 (i.e., improper importation of goods), or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) A person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing,

selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation u/Sec 111,

The amount of penalty which can be imposed u/Sec 112 is as stated below: Case Imposable penalty shall not exceed the following i) In the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition

is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force,

Higher of (a) Value of goods (b) Rs 5,000

ii) In the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A,

Higher of (a) 10% * of duty sought to be evaded

(b) Rs 5,000


* If such duty as determined u/Sec 28 and the interest payable thereon

u/Sec 28AA is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of PO determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be 25% of the penalty so determined. (inserted by FA, 2015)

iii) In the case of goods in respect of which

… the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made u/Sec 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the actual value thereof, *

Highest of (a) Difference between (actual value and declared value)

(b) Rs 5,000

iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and

(iii), (i.e., prohibited goods + misdeclaration) Highest of (a) Value of goods

(b) Difference between (actual value and declared value)

(c) Rs 5,000

v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), (i.e., non-prohibited dutiable goods + misdeclaration)

Highest of (a) Duty sought to be evaded (b) Difference between (actual value

and declared value)

(c) Rs 5,000

Author • Penalty in case of DUTIABLE imported goods [Sec 112(ii)] – FA, 2015 amendment

FA, 2015 has amended the related penalty. Earlier max penalty was higher of duty sought to be evaded or Rs 5,000. Now, it is higher of 10% of duty sought to be evaded or 5,000. • (Further, mitigation provisions have been introduced. The penalty imposed shall stand reduced to 25%, if duty and related interest is

paid within 30 days of demand order (ofcourse, reduced penalty amount shall also be paid alongwith) • Penalty in case of overvaluation of imported goods [Sec 112(iii)]

Overvaluation of imported goods: WHY? This route (overvaluation) is used to siphoned off money abroad. Very recently (in 2015 itself), DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) had slapped a Rs 5,500 crore SCN on companies in Adani Group for alleged over-valuation of imports of capital equipments.

Illustration Mr X was found engaged in smuggling (improper importation as specified u/Sec 111) in respect of certain imported goods, the value where of, as computed for the purpose of Sec 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is Rs 10 lakhs. Compute the max amount of penalty imposable on Mr X in the following independent cases: (a) If the said goods are prohibited goods, otherwise chargeable to duty @10% (b) If the said goods are non-prohibited goods chargeable to duty @10% (c) If the said goods are non-prohibited goods chargeable to NIL duty, but the value declared by Mr X is 12 lakhs which is higher than

the actual customs value of Rs 10 lakhs; (d) If the said goods are prohibited goods, which are declared by Mr X to be some other goods valuing 25 lakhs, chargeable to duty

@10% (e) If the said goods are non-prohibited goods chargeable to duty @30%, but Mr X declared them to be some other goods valuing Rs

25 lakhs chargeable to duty @5% Computation of penalty u/Sec 112:

Case Imposable penalty shall not exceed the following

Amount of Max penalty

i) prohibited goods, otherwise chargeable to duty @10%

Higher of (a) Value of goods (10 lakh) (b) Rs 5,000

= Rs 10,00,000

ii) non-prohibited goods chargeable to duty @10%

Higher of (a) 10% * of duty sought to be evaded, i.e., 10% of 1,00,000

(b) Rs 5,000

= Rs 10,000 Further, if duty amount of Rs 10,000 and the interest payable thereon u/Sec 28AA is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of PO determining such duty, the amount of


penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be 25% of the penalty so determined (i.e., Max 2,500)

iii) non-prohibited goods chargeable to NIL duty, but the value declared by Mr X is 12 lakhs higher than the actual customs value of Rs 10 lakhs

Highest of (a) Difference between (actual value and declared value), i.e., (12 lakhs – 10 lakhs),= 2,00,000

(b) Rs 5,000

= Rs 2,00,000

iv) prohibited goods, which were

declared to be some other goods valuing 25 lakhs, chargeable to duty @10%

Highest of of

(a) Value of goods, i.e., 10 lakhs (b) Difference between (actual

value and declared value), i.e., 15 lakhs

(c) 5,000

= Rs 15,00,000

v) non-prohibited goods chargeable to duty @30%, which were declared to be some other goods valuing Rs 25 lakhs chargeable to duty @5%

Higher of (a) Duty sought to be evaded, i.e., ( 10,00,000 *30% less 25,00,000 *5%) = 1,75,000

(b) Difference between (actual value and declared value) i.e., 15 lakhs

(c) 5,000

= Rs 15,00,000

.

23. State the penalties imposable u/Sec 114 in respect of goods attempted to export improperly.

[May 2013- 3 Marks] [Nov 2014- 3 Marks] Under sec 114, penalties can be imposed on

-- A person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation u/Sec 113 (i.e., goods attempted to be export improperly), or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or

The amount of penalty which can be imposed u/Sec 112 is as stated below: Case Imposable penalty shall not exceed the following i) In the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition

is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force,

Higher of (a) 300% of declared value (b) Value as determined under Customs

ii) In the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A,

Higher of (a) 10% of duty sought to be evaded

(b) Rs 5,000

* If such duty as determined u/Sec 28 and the interest payable thereon u/Sec 28AA is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of PO determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be 25% of the penalty so determined. (inserted by FA, 2015)

iii) In the case of any other goods Higher of (a) declared value (b) Value as determined

under Customs

Illustration Mr Y was found attempting to improperly export certain goods from India. The value where of, as computed for the purpose of Sec 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is Rs 10 lakhs. Compute the max amount of penalty imposable on Mr Y in the following independent cases: (a) If the said goods are prohibited goods, which are declared by Mr Y to be some other goods valuing 15 lakhs, chargeable to duty

@5% (higher value was declared to claim higher export incentives). (b) If the said goods are non-prohibited goods chargeable to export duty @10%, but value declared by Mr Y was Rs 4 lakhs. (c) If the said goods are non-prohibited goods not chargeable to export duty, but value declared by Mr Y was Rs 20 lakhs. Computation of penalty u/Sec 114:

Case Imposable penalty shall not exceed the following

Amount of Max penalty

i) prohibited goods- misdeclaration

Higher of (a) 300% of declared value, i.e., 300% of 15 lakhs = 45 lakhs

= Rs 45,00,000


(b) Value of goods (10 lakh)

ii) non-prohibited goods and dutiable goods

Higher of (a) 10% * of duty sought to be evaded, i.e., 10% of ( 10,00,000 *10% less 4,00,000 *10%) = Rs 60,000

(b) Rs 5,000

= Rs 60,000 Further, if duty amount of Rs 1,00,000 and the interest payable thereon u/Sec 28AA is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of PO determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be 25% of the penalty so determined (i.e., Max 15,000)

iii) non-prohibited goods and non- dutiable goods

Higher of (a) Declared value, i.e., Rs 20,00,000

(b) Value determined as per Customs, i.e, 10,00,000

= Rs 20,00,000

.

Documents

^CONFISCATION & PENALTY^ Civil Pro- Cons Pen.pdf · Prof.Dippak / IDT Cus/ Civil Proceedings CONFISCATION & PENALTY: SEIZURE OF GOODS – SEC 110 1. Briefly explain with reference