9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order]. - The appellants had imported certain consignments of Integrated Circuits on the strength of an Advance Licence under the DEEC Scheme and filed Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 47/2002-Cus. The Customs authorities on a second check of the consignment detected an excess quantity of 1512 pieces of Integrated Circuit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the excess quantity of 1512 pieces of Integrated Circuits which was liable to confiscation. The redemption fine has been determined on the wrong premise that the entire consignment was liable to confiscation under Section 111(m). Counsel pleads for a lenient view in regard to penalty also. 4. Ld. SDR, on the other hand, submits that, though the relevant Bill of Entry had been filed as early a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 111(m) of the Customs Act were thus attracted. However, the Commissioner has invoked the said provision in respect of the entire consignment and, that too, after recording a finding that the excess quantity of 1512 pieces valued at Rs. 8,20,120/- was imported in violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Notably the Commissioner has not recorded such a finding in respect of the quantity of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 111 of the Act. In this case, obviously, the premise on which the Commissioner has imposed the penalty is, as already noted, that the entire quantity of goods covered by the Bill of Entry was rendered liable to confiscation. This premise has already been adjudged to be erroneous. Only the excess quantity of 1512 pieces was rendered liable to confiscation by the commissions/omissions of the party. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
