2000 (4) TMI 723

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. For the purpose of hearing this appeal, the appellants are required to pre-deposit penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for undervaluing the imported goods in terms of the impugned order. The goods have been confiscated which are valued at Rs. 14,13,477/-. However, the Commissioner has granted an option to re-export the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erfran Ltd. v. CC as reported in [1994 (72) E.L.T. 724 (T)] and that of Padia Sales Corporation v. CC as reported in [1992 (61) E.L.T. 90 (T)]. The learned Counsel submits that in the light of these judgments and in terms of the older for re-export granted by the Commissioner, the redemption line is not imposable including duty. He submits that the Commissioner has not looked into the ratio of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . On a careful consideration of these submissions and the citations referred to by the learned Counsel, we notice that in terms of the ratio of these judgments, it is clear that the authorities cannot impose redemption fine at the same time ordered for re-export of the goods. The ratio appears to be that when re-export has been ordered then in such circumstances, redemption fine and duty cannot be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X