9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported before. Held that- impugned order rejecting request for re-export sustainable. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had entered wrong particulars in the bills of lading, packing list etc to facilitate mis-declaration of the description of the goods by the importer in these cases of import. The impugned order also found based on evidence that the importer had similarly mis-declared description of a few consignments imported in the past and had availed ineligible duty exemption. The value had also been under-declared. The Commissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 2,19,47,657/- along with applicable interest on the enhanced value of the consignments under import as well as past consignments and imposed fine and penalty on the importer. The impugned order demanded Rs. 15,76,061/- from VF towards duty due on excess quantity imported. A penalty of Rs. 2,35,23,718 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected their request. They addressed a representation dated 12-9-2007 seeking permission to re-export the consignments through their Counsel which was also not allowed. An appeal filed against the above communication before the CESTAT was rejected vide Final order No. 483/2008 dated 29-2-2008. [2008 (230) E.L.T. 320 (Tribunal)]. 2.1 The appeal is canvassed on the following grounds. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd. [2003 (155) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.)]. This reliance was mis-placed, as in that case, the importer had not turned up in spite of notice, respondent No. 1 had surfaced only after the show cause notice had been is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intended to obtain undue duty exemption under DFRC scheme. The supplier also had entered wrong particulars in the shipping documents to facilitate evasion by the importer. It was found that the same importer had similarly mis-declared the description of consignments of 'cotton corduroy fabrics' cleared in the past under several other Bills of Entry, thereby availing inadmissible exemption benefit. There was also excess quantity imported in the impugned consignments. The Commissioner re-determined the value of the consignments and demanded total differential duty of Rs. 2,35,23,718/- along with applicable interest. Rs. 2,35,23,718/- was imposed on VF under Section 114(A) of the Customs Act. The impugned order ordered fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and (o) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, this court took the view that the said clauses were not attracted in the facts of the case and therefore the power to confiscate goods could not be exercised. It was in this background that the court also considered the question of passing of property in goods in favour of the importer and ultimately the foreign exporter was permitted to re-export the goods. 14. The points of distinction between the present case and Dugar's case (supra) are that the importer did not disappear in that case. Rather it appeared before the Customs Authorities and claimed the right to take delivery of goods. The importer in Dugar's case participated in adjudication proceedings before the Customs Authorities and durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the sale of Goods Act cannot be applied in the context of present facts.". In the above judgment in paragraph 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that the result of discussion in the judgment was that import of consignment in question being contrary to law, the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The order of confiscation of the goods passed by the Commissioner of Customs was in accordance with law. Their Lordships were unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in permitting re-export of the goods. 5. We find that in the instant case, the goods under import are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act on account of mis-declaration . In view of the above judgment and the ratio as reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
