9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the goods as USD 28,321 CIF as against the declared value of USD 25,080 CIF and also stated that the goods appeared to be 6 to 7 years old. Since second-hand goods less than 10 years old were not freely importable under the relevant Exim Policy, the importer was called upon to produce specific licence for the subject import, which was not produced by the party. The importer waived show-cause notice and requested for adjudication of the case. The adjudicating authority confiscated goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act in the absence of specific import licence, but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 125 of the Act. The authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the party under Section 112(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m were admittedly second-hand medical goods covered by Sl. No. 1 of the Table annexed to Customs Notification No. 152/94 and that all the relevant conditions of exemption were satisfied by them. Taking into account the fact that the goods were imported for the benefit of the blind and the deaf as also the fact that the importer was a charitable institution working for the benefit of such handicapped people, the lower authorities ought to have allowed clearance of the goods. Production of duty exemption certificate was not one of the conditions for exemption. At least, the lower appellate authority should have allowed re-export of the goods in terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in Union of India v. Sampath Raj Dugar [1992 (58) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is for permission to re-export the goods without imposition of fine and penalty. In support of the prayer for permission for re-export of the goods, ld. Counsel has relied on two Final Orders of this Bench. In the case of M.V. Marketing and Supplies considered in Final Order No. 861/2004, dated 8-10-2004, [2004 (178) E.L.T. 1034 (T)] the importer had requested for re-export of the goods viz. assorted readymade garments which had been imported by them by resorting to mis-declaration of quantity, value etc. In that case, the supplier of the goods had also agreed for reshipment of the goods. But the importer s prayer for permission to re-export the goods was turned down by the Commissioner on the ground that re-export of tainted goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners. The show-cause notice issued by the Department to the party for confiscation, penalty etc., was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner, who ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 with option for redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the party requested for re-export of the goods. The Tribunal, following its earlier order in M.V. Marketing (Supra), allowed re-export of the goods without payment of duty but on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The penalty imposed on the party by the Commissioner was set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In the instant case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
