9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilk and dupian silk without payment of duty in terms of the provisions of Exim Policy, 1992-97 read with customs Notification No. 204/92, dt. 19-5-92. The said raw silk was to be used by them in the manufacture of fabrics and made-ups for export to various European countries. As per the appellants inasmuch as European countries banned the use of Azodise, they were unable to fulfil their export obligations and accordingly applied to customs authorities for payment of customs duties and interest and to regularise the fault in fulfilment of their export obligations. As a result, the appellants deposited duty of Rs. 1,47,51,990/- (rupees one crore forty seven lakhs fifty one thousand nine hundred ninety) and also an amount of Rs. 41,25,671/- (r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions both written and oral, made by and on behalf of the Noticee. The submissions have been examined and it is correct that the requisite duty and interest have been paid by the Noticee, which fact finds mention in the show cause notice itself. Furthermore, for non-fulfilment of export obligation, it is observed that the Office of the DGFT have regularised the shortcoming. This has been noted by the Hon ble High Court, Kolkata vide their order of 7-2-2000 who also observed that the said facts are not controverted by the learned Counsel of the Respondent. This being so, it is ample clear that the goods in question have been regularised and the requisite duty and interest have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount the totality of the case, I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs only) on the noticee viz., M/s. M.M. Exports under Sections 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. A reading of the above would show that the Commissioner has observed that the office of the DGFT have regularised the shortcomings in respect of the export obligation, if any. As such he has held that there is no ground for confiscation of the said goods. In terms of the provisions of Sections 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty can be imposed on a person only if any offending goods are held to be liable for confiscation. The reliance by the ld. adv. on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.S. Gupta v. CC, New Delhi - 2001 (132) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
