9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. This stay application is filed by the appellants for the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and stay of the recovery proceedings. 2. After hearing for some time with reference to the stay petition filed by the party we felt that the matter itself can be disposed of on the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... series bonds for further periods. The 3rd respondent will take a decision in the matter in acordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 also. The decision will be taken within a period of three months from today. Further he drew our attention to the relavant portion of the impugned order as appeared in page 10 which is as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the Customs Act for violation of the bond conditions. As per the conditions of the bond, the importer will be liable for penalty etc., that may be imposed for failure of the re-export. Further, since they have not re-exported the original importation is in violation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act which render the goods liable for confiscation. Thus the violation of re-export condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstead of proceeding as per the statutory provisions. Thus, I find the request in exhibit P-19 for directing the importers M/s. Crown Maritime to issue NOC cannot be granted since the same is not in accordance with the statutory provisions under the Customs Act. Therefore, the exhibit P-19 is disposed as below : 1. No further extension of Bonds granted. 2. Direction for re-export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iods. Further he was directed to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law after offering an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before the High Court and the respondents. Since the Commissioner has not considered the revision in extending the time, the order is bad in law as it was rightly argued on behalf of the party. In the facts and circumstance, we are remanding the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
