9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The facts of the two appeals filed by appellants are that on the basis of intelligence collected by the Customs Authorities that the importer was importing the goods not covered by DEEC Book, investigations were conducted and four consignments were traced out at Madras Port and five consignments were traced out at Bombay Port. The importer was called upon to produce documents. Instead of appearing in pursuance of summons issued, the importer informed the Customs Authorities that they had completed export obligations against Import/Export Pass Book No. 0000257 and 0000280. The goods lying in Bombay Port and Madras Port are not directly related to the Export production and that they would like to clear the consignments on payment of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported goods were the inputs for the exported goods and, therefore, could be imported under the DEEC Books which they had in their possession but was subsequently seized by Bombay Customs Authorities and not returned to them. The learned Counsel submits that since the importers were in a hurry to clear the goods, they agreed to pay duty under the impression that no redemption fine will be imposed. The learned Counsel submits that there has been denial of justice inasmuch as principles of natural justice were not followed by the adjudicating authority. He agitates that for arriving at the redemption fine, the adjudicating authority has held that the appellants would have sold these goods at higher price; that this was a presumption which can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 115, such fine shall not be exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. We find therefore that for the purpose of determining the quantum of redemption fine, the market price is necessary. Neither side could indicate what the market price during relevant period was. In this view of the matter, we do not see any force in the challenge to the impugned order by both sides. We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the impugned order regarding redemption fine is upheld. We agree with the contention of the ld. SDR that there was no denial of natural justice. 7. The Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
