Pritam Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

1. In these appeals filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal the Appellants have contested the confiscation of the goods (Fertilizers & Pesticides) seized from tractor trolley, lying in the godown, as well as imposition of penalty. I have gone through the record and heard both sides. The appellant, Shri Prem Chand Agarwal, was having his godown in village Tikonia in U.P. where he was storing fertilizers and pesticides at the relevant time. One tractor and trolley carrying the goods from his godown was intercepted on 5-5-2000 by the Customs officers before the Nepal Border at a distance of 1.5 km. on the belief that the goods were intended to be exported to Nepal by Shri Prem Chand Agarwal. The goods loaded in the tractor and trolley were seized along with tractor and trolley. Shri Pritam Singh, appellant was the driver of tractor and trolley. Thereafter, the Customs officers visited the godown of Shri Prem Chand Agarwal and seized the entire stock of the goods lying therein. After serving show cause notice on all the appellants the Adjudicating Authority ordered absolute confiscation of the goods, tractor & trolley and imposed penalty of various amounts on the appellants as detailed in the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed that order. But there is nothing on record to suggest that storage of fertilizers and pesticides in the area of village Tikonia in U.P. was prohibited under any law enacted by U.P.Government or by any other Notification issued under the Customs Act.

These goods were also never declared as prohibited goods requiring licence for storage from the Customs Authorities. Therefore, the goods lying in godown of Shri Prem Chand Agarwal could legally be seized and thereafter confiscated by the authorities below. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments, as contended by the learned D.R., that permission of the local authority was required for storage still no seizure or confiscation of the goods could be made by the Customs authorities. The action, if any, could be taken by the competent officer of the local authorities, for violating any prohibitory order.

The belief entertained by the Customs officers at the time of seizure of the goods from the godown that these were meant for export, cannot also said to be a reasonable belief as the godown was located at a distance of 1.5 km. from Nepal border and that area had never been declared as restricted area for storage of fertilizers and pesticides by the Customs authorities.

2. Similarly, seizure of the goods from tractor and trolley could even be legally made as the tractor and trolley at that time was roaming within the Indian territory at a distance of 1.5 km. from the Nepal border. It could not be inferred that the goods loaded in tractor and trolley were meant for export, specially when no person was intercepted or interrogated at the Nepal border who was supposed to receive the goods after crossing the Indian territory.

3. In the light of above the impugned Order regarding confiscation of the goods seized from godown of Shri Prem Chand Agarwal, appellant, as well, seized from the tractor and trolley, cannot be sustained. That being so, no penalty against the appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act can be also sustained. Therefore, the impugned Order is set aside in toto against all the appellants. Tractor and trolley shall stand released unconditionally. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.