9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in Appeal C/295/98-A imported a consignment of photographic lenses. It was his case that the goods imported are of Hong Kong origin. He declared the value on that basis at Rs. 2,35,463.47. On examination by the Customs authorities, the goods were found to be of Japanese origin. By the impugned order in the appeal, value was enhanced to Rs. 25,84,163.00. On this basis, Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed on the appellant. 3. During the proceedings before the Customs authorities relating to the release of the goods, appellant deposited Rs. 15 lakhs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been upheld by the Supreme Court. 5. On 21-1-1999, a Bench of this Tribunal disposed of Appeal No. C/295/98-A. Adjudicating authority has been found to have totally misdirected itself in disregarding the value declared by the appellant. Consequently, the order impugned in the appeal was set aside and the appeal was allowed with resultant relief to the appellant. Revenue took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 3626/1999. Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal on 13-7-1999. 6. After the decision of this Tribunal allowing the appeal on 21-1-1999, appellant approached the authorities of customs department to return the goods imported on accepting the duty and also to refund the amounts deposited by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-5-1999, no action was taken by the authorities. Miscellaneous application filed by the appellant in Appeal C/295/98-A was taken up on 20-5-1999. From that date it was adjourned to 25-5-1999 and then to 10-6-1999. When it came up on 10-6-1999, the Tribunal passed the following order :- . Both sides submitted that meeting took place on 9th June, 1999 with reference to the miscellaneous application filed by the party to initiate contempt proceedings and accordingly in the meeting it was agreed that Keeping in mind the peculiar situation and inability on the part of the Department to release the goods, the party has agreed to the suggestion of the Department to accept the sale proceeds after deducting the duty leviable on the declared va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the case was adjourned to 16-8-1999, after noting that the Department has not filed any statement to the effect that this Tribunal s order has been given full effect to or has been implemented in toto. On 16-8-1999, on behalf of the appellant s counsel adjournment was sought on account of her illness. Thus, the petition has come up for hearing today. 10. On behalf of the Revenue the status report running into four pages not signed by anybody was filed with six Annexures. The stand taken therein is that Rs. 15 lakhs deposited by the appellant was not in relation to the import of the goods covered by the impugned order, that it was a voluntary payment in the course of parallel investigations relating to their various imports by DRI, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was quashed by the Tribunal. In support of this argument, learned Departmental Representative brought to our notice show cause notice No. DRI/50D/35/97-CI, dated 8-6-1999 issued to the appellant. In that notice thirteen consignments imported through various airports in India are mentioned. 13th item therein is the one which was concerned in the appeal decided by this Tribunal. The goods were covered by Bill of Entry No. 582552, dated 3-10-1997. The goods covered by that Bill of Entry was the subject matter of the impugned order -in-appeal. It was in the course of that inquiry, Rs. 15 lakhs were deposited by the appellant on 27-11-1997. The factum of this deposit was noted by this Tribunal in Stay Order No. 89/98-A, dated 3-4-1998. This Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, to say the least, is an attempt to defy the order of this Tribunal and to over-reach the said decision which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. This Tribunal s order dated 21-1-1999 was not implemented in spite of specific directions given by this Tribunal, inasmuch as the amounts remitted by the appellant were not refunded. We are clear in our mind that the department was trying to make out a situation to defeat the appellant from getting the fruits of the orders passed by this Tribunal. The order dated 5-8-1999 has to be treated as an attempt to flout the decision of this Tribunal. The authority which passed that order did not consider all relevant aspects. It has only to be ignored. We direct the Commissioner to refund Rs. 15 lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
