9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. By this appeal the appellant is challenging the order of confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant filed shipping Bill No. 09944, dated 20-7-95 for export of 40 MTs of stainless steel circles of AISI 304 grade of thickness declared as 0.8 mm and 0.5 mm. They sought for export under DEEC li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter requires to be re-adjudicated in view of the DGFT having validly endorsed and amended the licence to justify the export of the goods which were physically checked. On remand the Commissioner noted that originally the appellant had misdeclared the goods and therefore there was violation of provision to Section 113 of the Customs Act. Hence the fine and penalty is required to be imposed. 2. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the party and/or attending extenuating circumstances are material and relevant factors to be taken into consideration by imposition fine and penalty. It has also been noted that merely because action against goods is action in rem it does not mean that a person who had committed no offence in respect of them or with reference to them could be made to suffer by way of payment of fine or otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides the Tribunal originally by Order No. 725/97, dated 14-3-97 have clearly accepted the appellant s plea that the mistake had occurred on account of DGFT in recording incorrect details in the licence as against their application. Tribunal also noted the amended licence which was obtained by the exporter and on that ground the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention on the part of the appellant to commit the offence and they were under the bona fide belief that the entries in the DEEC licence book had been made in terms of their application. The mistake had been brought to the notice of the DGFT who have corrected the same. In the earlier order of the Commissioner, the appellants were granted permission to export goods. Therefore in the peculiar facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
