2006 (4) TMI 296 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confiscating goods for export and imposing penalties on firm and partners under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is the confiscation of goods meant for export and the imposition of penalties on the firm and partners under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. The appellants had filed shipping bills for export, but it was later discovered that they had forged Bank realization certificates to obtain DEPB scrip. This led to a show cause notice for violating FERA and Customs Act provisions.

2. Upon review, it was found that the goods were confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, which allows confiscation of goods attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition imposed by law. However, in this instance, the goods were Hand Tools, not prohibited under the Customs Act or any other law. Therefore, confiscation under Section 113(d) was deemed inappropriate.

3. Citing a similar case, Parker Industries, the Tribunal highlighted that penalties cannot be imposed if importers were not penalized for importing goods under invalid DEPB licenses. The validity of the licenses at the time of import is crucial, as per legal precedents like the Taparia Overseas case. This reasoning supported the decision to set aside the confiscation of goods and associated penalties under Section 114.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeals based on the finding that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. This decision was made after a thorough consideration of the submissions and legal provisions involved.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, under the guidance of Shri M.V. Ravindran, JJ.