1. Vide the impugned Order, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna has confiscated 31 bags of betel nuts claimed to be belonging to the appellant.
2. As per the facts on record, the Patna Customs seized the 31 bags of betel nuts alleged to be of foreign origin from Farakka Express Train when the same reached Patna Junction. The adjudication order is also in respect of another seizure of 68 bags of betel nuts from Brahmputra Mail and in the present appeal, I am not concerned with the same. As such, I am dealing only with the appellant's claim with respect to 31 bags.
2a. After seizure of the betel nuts on 5-11-99, the appellant, Shri Sunderlal vide his letter dated 12-1-2000 claimed ownership of the goods in question and submitted the requisite papers along with the railway receipts to the Revenue. However, it was noticed that the goods were booked by one Shri Niranjan Nath of Silchar and Shri Akash Dev of Delhi. On investigations, neither the consignor nor the consignee could be located. The appellant was directed to produce the said persons. He submitted that since he possessed the railway receipts duly endorsed by the consignor/consignee in his name, he was the real owner of the goods covered under the said railway receipts as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Railway Act, 1989. He also deposed that he had collected the betel nuts in question from the local growers of Assam and had arranged the booking through the local man as a consignor and arranged for getting delivery of the same through a local man made as a consignee. The said persons had endorsed the railway receipts in his name. So he was entitled to claim the ownership and contest the case.
3. It is seen from the impugned order that the Commissioner has observed as under :- "Shri Niranjan Nath and Shri Akash Dev are the consignor and consignee for the betel nuts claimed by Shri Sundarlal, and Shri Ajay Kumar is consignor/consignee of the betel nuts claimed by both Shri Ratan Das and Shri Kian Kumar Jain. But the official consignors/consignees never appeared before the Customs Authorities to claim the betel nuts in question. On investigation, their addresses were found to be fictitious/non-existent. Thus, when the genuineness of consignor/consignee is not ascertainable or established, no validity can be given to the claims of the holders of RRs/PWBs. How can the agents be genuine when the actual official owners are non-existent/fictitious? I, therefore, hold the claims of ownership over the betel nuts by the appellants as untenable and liable to rejection." 4. The appellant has challenged the above finding of the adjudicating authority on the ground that as per the provisions of the Railway Law, the person who produces the railway booking receipt, is entitled to get delivery of the goods. Inasmuch as the RRs are in the possession of the appellant, he is the actual owner of the goods in question.
Alternatively, it has been pleaded that when the consignments are booked by Railways, Railways remain the owner, in which the goods are delivered at the destination against the production of the relevant documents. My attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989. The Railways are not concerned with the person as to who is the actual consignor or consignee. They are only concerned with the RRs/PWBs and may deliver the goods to anyone who surrenders the railway documents. As such, the counsel for the appellant submits that inasmuch as there is no finding of the lower authority about the foreign origin of the betel nuts and their smuggled nature, the Revenue is duty-bound to return the goods to the Railways from whose possession it had seized the same and the Railways would decide about the delivery of the same in accordance with their laws.
5. From the impugned order, I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the appellant's claim by doubting his ownership of the same.
However, while doing so, he has not adverted to the provisions of the Railway Act, 1989. The appellant is claiming that he was in the possession of the railway receipts on the basis of which he can claim the goods from the Railways. Even otherwise, I find that the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provided for return of the seized goods to the person from whose possession, the same are seized and as such, the appellant's request that the goods may be returned to the Railways from whose custody the same were seized, is required to be looked into. As such, I set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above.