9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and imposed also penalties on both the appellants as detailed therein i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- on the company appellant No. 1 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on its Director (Appellant No. 2). 2. The validity of the impugned order has been challenged by the learned Counsel mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the provisions of Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act are not at all attracted to the case of the appellants. Secondly, there had been no violation of Rule 13 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 (in short Rules 1995). 3. To elaborate the first ground, the learned Counsel has contended that the goods sought to be exported were only garments and the export of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iser, then conducted the examination and the goods were thus allowed to be taken back as is evident from the examination report dated 22-1-1999. It is only thereafter that the seizure of the goods was made by the M P wing of the Customs Commissionerate, on the belief that these goods were brought in the customs area for export with inflated price in order to claim more drawback. 5. The goods brought by the appellants within the customs area were garments and there is nothing on the file to suggest if export of those goods was prohibited at that time on account of any prohibition imposed by or under the law or by any other law for the time being in force. These goods were also neither chargeable to duty. Having allowed permission to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 4. 7. This takes me to the second ground put forth by the learned Counsel for disputing the correctness of the impugned order. According to the Counsel, since there was no order passed by the competent authority under Section 51 of the Customs Act permitting the clearance and loading of the goods for export, the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1995, referred to above, did not stand attracted and as such, it could not be said that any deemed claim for drawback stood filed by the appellants. However, learned JDR on the other hand while refuting this argument of the learned Counsel has contended that once the shipping bills were filed by the appellants, the claim for drawback was to be presumed to had been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
