9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and the licence expired on 28-2-1986. It was found that the shipment took place on 5-3-1986 and as such the shipment being subsequent to the expiry of the licence, the import was objected to by the Department. The appellants filed the B/E for home consumption on 30-5-1986. However, on 3-6-1986, they received a message from the suppliers stating that the goods dispatched were defective and that the same may be re-shipped. Accordingly, a prayer for re-shipment was made. In the adjudication proceedings, the prayer of re-shipment was allowed on payment of fine of Rs. 60,000/-. In appeal before the Collector (Appeals) the Collector (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 30,000/- and confirmed the rest of the order of the adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ya Exports reported in 1988 (14) ECR 87 (Cegat WRB), where a view is taken that in the absence of any finding that the appellants were concerned in the illegal import, penalty and fine could be waived. He submitted that taking into consideration the ratio of these decisions and when the bona fides have been accepted even by the Department and when the goods are not brought for home consumption but have been sought for re-export, there is no question of ordering confiscation and imposition of redemption fine. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the adjudicating authority should be set aside. 4. Heard Shri Arya. He however, supported the order passed by the authorities below and submitted that here is the case where the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly imported. However, it has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case and merely because the import is considered as unauthorised, confiscation and imposition of fine is not an unavoidable exigency. Here the Department themselves are satisfied about the bona fides and therefore considering the guidelines laid down in the decision cited by the learned advocate, I hold that it is not necessary to order confiscation and imposition of the redemption fine. Under the circumstances the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine for the purpose of re-export is set aside. It is reported that the goods have already been re-exported and hence there is no question of their being brought to Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
