9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PERMANENT MAGNET IN UNMAGNETIZED CONDITION (hereinafter referred to CADM) and had procured certificate of test from M/s. Metallurgica, Kolkata. The goods were lying on 5-12-2000 at FEPZ awaiting export. Enquiries were made and a show cause notice dated 26-4-2001, was issued as it appeared : 22. Now from the above it appears that - (i) Goods covered under 7 (seven) shipping bills as aforesaid were attempted to be exported by M/s. HIECL in violation of prohibitions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and Section 67 of the FERA, 1973 and Rules 5, 6 7 of the Foreign Exchang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prietor Shri Parasmal Bachhawat M/s. HIECL and its Director Shri Subrata Mukherjee have tendered themselves liable to penal action under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. and M/s. Hilton Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd., Kolkata, Shri Subrata Mukherjee, Director, M/s. Hilton Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd., Kolkata, M/s. G.R. Industries, Kolkata and Shri Parasmal Bachhawat, Kolkata were required to show cause as to why : (i) the subject goods i.e Cast Iron/Steel, misdeclared as CAPM weighing total 180940 kg valued at Rs. 27,14,100 (FOB declared as Rs. 82,71,349.50) and supplied to FEPZ unit for ultimate export without manufacturing/processing by M/s. HIECL should not be confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,71,349.50 under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I given an option to the exporter to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs only) in lieu of confiscation, under Section 125 ibid. (ii) I disallow the export of the impugned 74 Nos. of cast iron/steel rolls through FEPZ against the L.O.P No. FEPZ/LIC/H-12/2000/ 630, dated 26-4-2000 on the strength of the subject 7 (seven) shipping bills. On redemption the same may be disposed of as per the existing laws and procedures for Free Trade Zone. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) on M/s. Hilton Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Port of Bombay .. And thereafter upheld the levy of Export duty on Poppy Husks under Section 3A read with Rules 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Poppy Husks Rules, being expelled by the appellants exporter in that case from Mandsaur district of Madhya Pradesh to Holland via Port of Bombay even though it was not movement of poppy husks from one State to another State within India but an export across to Holland. I would therefore find in this view and the view taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra others v. Mohd. Yakub others [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1637 (S.C.)], a distinction between preparation and attempt to export will have to be arrived for an offence of attempt to export. It will be only wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt on the part of the respondents... . Therefore, before liability under Section 113 of the Customs Act is determined, it is necessary to examine the facts of separate movements, effected, of the goods; the stage of interception/seizure and finding therefore arrived at as to how the goods are Export Goods . From the records before me, I find that the seizure has been effected when goods were being packed in the premises of a unit in the Export Free Trade Zone and only shipping bills under Section 50 filed were available from these facts how attempt to export is established is required to be arrived at. Since it has not been done the matter needs to be remanded back for this re-determination essential and vital in case of an offence of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
