2003 (5) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act, and ordering confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 of four consignments of formic acid imported by the appellant but permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine. 2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. By a telegram it has sought adjournment on the ground that the manager, who is conversant with the case, is ill. 3. The matter was adjourned at the request of the appellant earlier on the following occasions : 14-12-2001 - on account of Ramzan and Id. On 25-1-2002 - its senior partner was out of India. On 16-2-2002 - owing to election on 21-2-2002. 26-2-2002 - on account of Id-ul-Asha 29-4-2002 - as manager was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rdered other action. 6. We shall now deal with the contentions made in the appeal. The claim that written submission was not considered and discussed by the Commissioner is not correct. The Commissioner has passed a detailed order. The contention that the second show cause notice on the basis of which the goods were seized is bad in law because there was no specific direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication is again wrong. In his order passed on an appeal by the appellant against the order of the Additional Commissioner, the Collector of Customs adjudicating on a notice that was earlier issued to the appellant, the Collector (Appeals) found that the show cause notice demanding duty by invoking the extended period co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty in such cases is within the dominant of the customs authority. The liability duty on the importer has therefore to be confirmed. We are however unable to sustain the confiscation order of the consignment of formic acid under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. The basis for the confiscation appears to be that the appellant had already sold the goods to Pravin Chandra Shah. However, if this was so, this would not attract the provisions of clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. Thus the import itself is unauthorised under Section 111 (d) of the Act. We note that while the show cause notice propose confiscation under clauses (o) and (d) of Section 111 of the Act, the Commissioner has only ordered confiscation under clause (d). Therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X