9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the date of notice or in the alternative to pay the amount demanded. The Customs authorities again issued a Notice dated 23.4.1983 directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- within 7 days from the date of notice in terms of the guarantee/bond. The appellants, however, re-shipped 37 containers on 3.5.1983. By their Letter dated 10.5.1983, the fact of re-export was brought to the notice of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Exemption Section. The Assistant Collector, however, issued a detention order dated 20.5.1983 under Section 142(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The appellants by their Letter dated 10.6.1983 requested for withdrawal of the detention order. They also approached the Collector of Customs seeking the relief of the withdrawal order by their Letter dated 10.6.1983. But then the detention order was not withdrawn and in the said circumstances they made payment on 2.7.1983 of the amount demanded. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Exemption Section passed an order holding that the appellants committed an offence under Section 111(O) and since the goods were not available for confiscation, he directed to pay forthwith a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- when the duty payable does not exceed Rs. 4,50,000/-. Shri Gagrat took us through the various correspondent entered between the appellants and the Department. He pleaded that there had been denial of principles of natural justice. He also contended that both the orders viz. the order passed by the Assistant Collector as well as Appellate Collector are untenable and void. He submitted that there was only a delay in the re-export of the containers and since the containers have been re-exported the bond could not be enforced and no adjudication could be held or penalty could be demanded. He also urged the initial period which has been fixed for re-export viz. 3 months had been changed to 6 months by a Public Notice. Therefore, the mere delay of re-export should not be sufficient to demand the bond amount. It was also submitted by Shri Gagrat that in the order of the Assistant Collector, it was not specifically stated as to whether the amount demanded was towards duty or penalty. Having regard to the nature, of the order passed by the Assistant Collector the amount should be treated as penalty and the Assistant Collector was not competent to impose penalty of Rs. 9,50,000/-. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontainers are brought back within 10 days and if they are not brought back within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the letter action in terms of I.T.C. Policy will be taken and also directed them to pay duty if the containers are not brought back within 10 days. On 22.1.1983, on behalf of the importers, their clearing agency requested the Assistant Collector to permit them to bring the containers from DMT plant site into the docks for reshipment per s.s. Neptune Dolphin. No reply appeared to have been given to the importers to the above said letter. The agency of the importers by their Letter dated 4.3.1983 informed the Assistant Collector that their clients M/s. Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd. were unable to destuff the containers though they had made arrangements to re-ship the containers to the vessel Neptune Dolphin which had arrived and sailed in the last week of January, 1983. Since an alternative arrangement has to be made they requested the Assistant Collector to give further extension of 2 months for re-shipment. The Assistant Collector by his Letter dated 7.3.1983 informed the importers that as pre conditions of the bond they have failed to re-ship, the said containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact remained that re-export was beyond the extended period of guarantee and as such the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- shall still be payable by the guarantors in terms of the guarantee/bond. Finally, he passed an order holding that the importers committed an offence under Section 111(O) and since the goods are not available for confiscation he ordered that the guarantors viz. M/s. Merzario Shipping Agencies shall pay forthwith the sum of Rs. 9,50,000/-in terms of the guarantee/bond. This order came to be passed on 8.8.1983. From the tenor of the order it is clear that the Assistant Collector adjudicated the matter and also held that an offence had been committed under Section 111(O) and therefore the goods became liable to confiscation and since it was not available for confiscation he directed for payment. He did not spell out whether it was the fine amount in lieu of confiscation or it is penalty or it is fine and penalty or fine/penalty and duty. The order is vague. It is now seen from the order of the Assistant Collector that he did not consider the request made by the Appellants for extension of time for re-export. The appellants had requested for extension on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
