9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents sold the goods to the appellant before us. This appellant filed the bills of entry for clearance of the goods, after the import manifest was amended to show him as the importer. In the meantime, however, the Collector had passed orders on the notices issued to the persons first shown as the importers, and confiscated the goods. On appeal by this appellant, that order of confiscation was set aside by orders passed on 4th July, 1995 by this Tribunal. By that order the Tribunal also asked the Commissioner to adjudicate the matter afresh within two months in view of the perishable nature of the goods. 2. The Commissioner passed this order after hearing the appellant on 11th May, 1997. He ordered confiscation of the goods for having been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted the contention of the appellant that because of their storage for over three years, the goods were deteriorated in quality and said that he was taking these factors into consideration. He therefore, while ordering confiscation of the goods, determined the redemption fine at Rs. 10.00 lakhs. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the appellant. Hence this appeal. 4. Advocate for the appellant reiterates the contention that it was a purchaser in good faith of the goods. He says that the Commissioner erred in calculating the margin of profit with reference to market price prevailing in December, 1996. He ought to have considered the market price in March, 1994 when the goods were imported. According to him this price should be ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ient evidence of prevailing prices. 6. The liability to confiscation of the goods is not questioned by the appellant. It is also not possible to agree that the relevant date for determining the margin of profit must be after the order of the Collector (Appeals) of 1996 who in 1996, bringing to an end the proceedings relating to the amendment to the manifest which was first permitted and subsequently set aside. The proceedings relating to the amendment of the manifest continues and the order of the Collector (Appeals) in 1966 related to the original amendment. Even assuming the departmental representative s contention to be acceptable, the fact remains that import was made much earlier, and it is the market price prevailing at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduction in the value of the goods on account of storage. Appellant shall also produce an affidavit for its edition of Vyapar affirming the correctness of the contents of his letter which was produced. The order the Commissioner shall consider the evidence that the appellant may produce. 9. We shall first deal with liability to penalty. It has not been shown that the goods were covered by a licence when they were first imported the importer not having been traced. Therefore when the appellant purchased these goods from the supplier it knew that the goods were liable to confiscation, unless a licence could be produced which was not done. There is therefore a liability to penalty under clause (b) of Section 112. However taking into accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
