9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may briefly be stated as under :- The appellants were holder of a Private Bonded Warehouse licence No. 10/1989, dated 8-5-89 issued under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the storage of consumable articles viz. Liquors, cigars, cigarettes, tobacco, beer and provisions etc. without payment of duty on the first importation thereof and subsequent supply/sale to the diplomats and privileged persons duty free under Clause 3(1)(d) of the Foreign Trade (Exemption from application of Rules in certain cases) Order, 1993 issued under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Foreign Privileged Persons (Regulations of Customs Privileges) Rules, 1957. Shri S.S. Bindra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the appellants on the call of the case. The perusal of the record shows that that the appeal was adjourned on a number of occasions on the request of the counsel. Today neither counsel nor any one had put up on behalf of the appellants. No request even for adjournment has been received on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR. 6. The perusal of the file shows that the appellants were personally served with a show cause notice dated 5-5-98 vide which they were called upon to show cause as to why the seized goods from the office and the residential premises of Shri S.S. Bindra, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, be not confiscated under Section 111(d)(j) (o) of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act for having violated the conditions of the Private Bonded Warehouse licence deserves to be upheld. The appellants have no legal right to claim the retention of the licence after having been once found to be guilty of violation of conditions of the same. The penalty under Section 117 of the Act has been also rightly imposed on them. 8. The plea taken by the appellants before the Commissioner was that the licence could not be cancelled without issuing one month notice and that the seizure of the goods case had not been still finalised against them. But this ground is not legally sustainable. The show cause notice dated 28-5-98 was served on them before passing the impugned order. The seizure of the goods case also already stands fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
