9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreign currency (US $) equivalent to Rs. 2,35,200/- as also against imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. This Bench allowed the appeal by way of remand directing the Commissioner to give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to redeem the gold bars by paying a reasonable amount of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act vide Final Order No. 68/07 ibid [2007 (212) E.L.T. 202 (Tribunal)]. Ld. Commissioner was directed to determine the amount to be paid by the party after hearing him. Further we vacated the penalty and directed the Commissioner to re-determine a reasonable penalty, after hearing the party. In the present application the Commissioner states as follows :- 8. In view of the above, the Hon ble Tribunal appears to have erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s already disposed of the goods and retains the sale proceeds. The foreign currency was converted to Indian currency and deposited in Government account even prior to adjudication of the case by the Commissioner. The present application states that this was done by the Department on 24-9-1999. The Commissioner passed the impugned order on 26-11-1999. The above fact was not taken cognizance of by the Commissioner, nor was it brought to the notice of the Bench at any time before. The same Commissioner, in the present application, states that the currency had been deposited in Government account. Thus it appears that, neither in respect of disposal of the gold bars nor in respect of deposit of currency in Government account, can it be said th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rency and deposited in Government account. The sale proceeds are lying with the Department. Ld. Counsel prays for a direction to the Commissioner to release the sale proceeds to the appellants after adjusting reasonable amounts of fine and penalty. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 2. After considering the submissions, we find that, now, there is no dispute regarding confiscation of the goods. The appellant, however, has a case that ld. Commissioner ought to have permitted him to redeem the gold bars against payment of a reasonable fine under Section 125. It is pointed out that this Tribunal has, in similar cases, interfered in the proceedings of adjudicating authorities and permitted redemption of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. For this purpose, learned Commissioner should determine the redemption fine to be paid in lieu of confiscation of the gold bars. This shall be done after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is also now on record that the foreign currency stands converted into Indian currency and is already in the Government account. In this respect also, ld. Commissioner shall permit the party to redeem the currency against payment of a reasonable fine to be determined by the Commissioner after hearing the party. Ld. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant. It has been pointed out by ld. Counsel that, in the case of K.K. Saidalavi (supra), penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs. It is subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
