9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. - Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri R.K. Chandan, J.D.R. appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 2. These appeals are against the order of Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad who has ordered confiscation of the vessel "Sea Queen" and 450 MT of cement under sub-section 2 of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed redempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfiscation and imposition of penalties. 4. We have heard the ld. Advocate for the Appellants and Department Representative for the Respondents. The ld. Advocate for the Appellants submitted that the seized cement was the Left over cargo and lying in loose and the same was not declared in the Import General Manifest as it was of "No Commercial Value". The Deptt. had drawn the sample and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his statement confirmed that the cement was of "No commercial value". The ld. Counsel therefore submitted that since confiscated cement had no commercial value and was damaged the same cannot be considered as cement and the same was not required to be declared in the IGM and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against all these Appellants are not justified under the law as the only charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Section 111(f) is not attracted and therefore the confiscation of cement is not warranted. Consequently the confiscation of the vessel "Sea Queen" and Tug Nashwa under Section 115(2) of the said Act is not warranted as Section 115(2) applies only if conveyance is used as a means of transport in smuggling of any goods. Further, since the goods are not liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
