9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and has granted redemption on fine in terms of respective orders on the ground that the importer has produced a specific import licence for importing fresh garlic. However, he has imposed penalty in each of the respective orders. He has noted that the assessment shall be made provisional adopting US $ 375/mt CIF on taking bank guarantee. 3. In this batch of appeal ld. Counsel, Shri R. Sudhakar points out to the finding in the order wherein the Commissioner has held that as a specific import licence had been submitted covering the goods, he has given a finding that no offence under Section 111(d) is attracted. He having expressed this view by accepting the special licence produced before the clearance of goods, there should not be an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment, taking into account the moisture content of the goods on the basis of DGFT s clarification dated 17-9-99. Since by virtue of above classification, goods covered are under OGL and even otherwise, in the common parlance they are covered under OGL and are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, no redemption fine is imposable and no penalty could also be levied on them. As regards the enhancement of value, the same has to be done as per the settled position of law. If there is any contemporaneous import, it should be on that basis and not solely on the basis of similar goods imported at the nearest port disregarding other material evidences on record. Therefore, for the purpose of valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner in the respective orders has dropped the proceedings under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act but has held the goods to be confiscated under Section 111(m) for misdeclaration. The Tribunal in the case of Zazman Exports v. CC, Chennai (supra) in a similar circumstance held that once the special licence has been produced before the clearance of goods then in such a circumstance fine and penalty is not imposable. Following the ratio of this judgment we set aside redemption fine and penalty in all the orders passed by the Commissioner. Insofar as the question of valuation is concerned we notice that this Bench in similar batch matter in the case of Jupiter Exports Ors. v. CC by Final Order Nos. 1778-1785/2001, dated 11-10-2001 has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
