9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner s order regarding extension of time under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for issue of notice was not to be interfered with; (b) The Petitioner was required to file necessary modification to the Bill of Entry for provisional release of the goods under seizure and for this purpose they should produce SIL licences to cover the above said provisional release of goods after assessment of the goods under seizure; (c) As regards the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, it was found as follows : (C1) The detention letter to the Custom have been issued by D.R.I, on 2-3-2001 and the cloves were ordered to be withdrawn from the custodians Auction List vide letter dtd. 28-6-2001 No. DRI/BZU/0/21/2001 of Deputy Director DRI-Mumba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained or taken/seized has either to be adjudicated or released within the time frame a Section 110(2). Therefore Cloves and amount of Rs. 20 lakhs stands released from seizure/detention. The said Rs. 20 lakhs were ordered to be refunded. 3. Revenue has taken the following points in this ROM application : 11. The department says and submits that the order of Hon ble CEGAT, manifests a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It is respectfully submitted that the said amount was a voluntary deposit by the party in relation to the earlier 27 consignments which were already cleared and diverted prior to the present action. Huge duty evasion is suspected therefore the party made the said voluntary payment of Rs. 20 lakhs against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion that the issue of diversion of imported goods from 100% EOU and the issue of undervaluation of the live consignment were different and distinct issues to be dealt with separately. 13. The department says and submits that the said amount of Rs. 20 lakhs were paid by the party by two separate demand drafts as follows : (i) DD No. 331400, dated 11-5-2001 for Rs. 15 lakhs. (ii) DD No. 331421, dated 11-5-2001 for Rs. 5 lakhs. The said demand drafts were deposited in the Government Treasury on 31-5-2001 i.e. much before the seizure of the current consignment was effected on 8-8-2001. Therefore, it is evident that the said payment of Rs. 20 lakhs cannot be linked with the consignment under the seizure and definite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due influence of the investigator on the importers, if not harassment of the Importers. We cannot be a mute spectator to the same. Non-clearance of the goods, covered by the subject Bill of Entry, which are perishable items liable for deterioration and spoilage in quality, could be causing an uncalled for pressure. This is also apparent from the fact, that the appellants produced Rs. 20 lakhs on 11-5-2001 or thereabout without any demand of duty or otherwise made in writing, made over the same. Not only they produced this large sum of money but without demur and parted it to the D.R.I.; The DRI officers deposited it in the treasure. This is indicating to us, that the appellants were sufficiently motivated by the investigating officer undue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that there was no application regarding extension of time limit, in the proceedings, before the lower authorities as regards the seizure of this Rs. 20 lakhs. (c) That order has been arrived at, after considering the facts on record and the submission made by the DRI. It is found that there is no error apparent on record brought out in the said ROM application now filed by Revenue. (d) The Revenue has totally mis-construed the scope of ROM application. By filing such an application, for rectification of mistake, it has to be shown that the facts recorded in the order are incorrect. When the Tribunal records the submissions of the Revenue the same could not be construed as incorrect fact. The ROM application repeatedly s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal comes to a further conclusion that no man of commerce much less an alleged evader of tax, as alleged, would voluntarily part with large sums, that too, without a written demand under law, and thereafter accepted the plea of coercion towards recovery of this amount made before them. Thereafter relying on the instructions of Ministry of Law - Central Apprising Manual Volume V, Chapter II Paras 3(a), 4(a)(ia), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii) they concluded that for this sum there was a seizure and also held that recorded seizure was not essential. It further concluded, it was required to be adjudicated or released within the time frame of Section 110(2) which was not done. 5. In this view of the matter and the findings arrived at by the Bench, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
