9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This appeal is against the Commissioner s order confiscating the goods in question under Section 113 of the Customs Act (with redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs) and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Section 114 of the Act. The appellants had filed a Shipping Bill dt. 9-5-2001 claiming both D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for Leather Exports. The appellants were not registered with the Council for Leather Exports. It was on these facts that the goods were not found to have been misdeclared for export as finished leather without the above registration and, accordingly, the same was confiscated. 2. It is submitted by the ld. counsel that the goods were taken back as permitted by the Customs authorities. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner. 3. It appears from the cited case that the parties to that case had agreed that most of the processes had been carried out and that there were deficiencies with regard to very few processes only. In the present case, however, the CLRI report is against the appellants but the same has not been assailed. The declaration in the Shipping Bill was finished leather and the expert s opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... willingness to take back the goods. It is submitted by the ld. counsel that the goods were, accordingly, permitted to be taken back. This submission has not been contested. If that be the case, the ld. Commissioner ought to have taken a lenient approach in the matter of determining the quantum of fine to be paid in lieu of confiscation. In our considered view, any fine in excess of Rs. 50,000/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
