9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together, heard together and hence this common order. The undisputed facts are 4,123 tyres (big, small, medium) totally valued at Rs. 4,35,550/- were seized by the officers of the customs of Porbandar from the vessel MSV A1 -Mohmadi. During the investigation, the statement of the five appellants were recorded. They uniformly pleaded that they were not aware of the ITC regulations. The tyres were sent freely from Dubai and they had not even paid freight charges. 3. After issue of a show cause notice and after consideration of the replies filed by the parties, the Additional Collector of Customs (P) Gujarat, Ahmedabad ordered absolute confiscation of the seized tyres. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on each of the appellants. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Collector of Customs who passed the order of confiscation undoubtedly had the discretion to give an option to the appellants to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. Presumably the Additional Collector of Customs assumed that he was bound to confiscate the goods because he had not adverted to this aspect in his order. He had undoubtedly the authority under law to give an option to the importers to pay such fine as was considered appropriate by him (not exceeding the full market value of the goods in question) in lieu of confiscation of the goods. We are of the opinion that since the Additional Collector of Customs who passed the order for absolute confiscation had the discretion to give the option for redemption, it was but just, fair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le or unjust. As such, we do not consider necessary to interfere with the order of confiscation or the penalty imposed on the appellants. But then there is considerable force in the contention of Shri Thakkar, that the Additional Collector who passed the impugned order had not adverted to the provisions of Section 125(1). As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, presumably, the Additional Collector assumed that he was bound to confiscate the goods which assumption is legally not correct. The submission of Shri Thakkar that similar imports were earlier allowed on payment of fine had not been disputed. There is no allegation that the imports were made for the purpose of trade. In the circumstances, we are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
