9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Learned Advocate Shri K. Kumar in support of the subject ROM application points out that the original authority vide its Order dated 2-4-1991 confiscated the imported goods under Section 11 (m) (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but gave an option to the applicants for redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/-. He also imposed a personal penalty of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the matter has only been remanded relating to valuation of the goods, fine and penalty, if any, submits the ld. Advocate, would be substantially reduced on de novo adjudication. He further submits that it is well settled position in law that if the matter is remanded, the impugned order gets annulled and therefore any deposits made by the appellant in pursuance of the impugned order are liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eu of confiscation of goods and penalty the said authority will not be have the means to recover the same from the applicants inasmuch as the goods have already gone out of the Customs control. He further submits that the remand proceedings cannot put the appellants/applicants in a position better than when the proceedings were started at the first stage. At that time the Customs had control over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly the following para 3 may be added in the final order of the Tribunal dated 5-12-1997 : 3. As regards the penalty and redemption fine already deposited by the appellants, the Department should refund the amounts of said penalty and fine subject to furnishing of a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 75,000/- by the appellants till the de novo proceedings as ordered above are completed. The adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
