9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal filed by M/s. Siva Enterprises is directed against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) sustaining an order of the original authority confiscating rice valued at Rs. 6.57 lakhs presented for export and imposing penalty on the appellants under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). The appellants were offered an option to redeem the confiscated rice on payment of a fine of Rs. 75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comprising the consignment. After due process of law, the original authority held that the impugned goods namely rice was liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Act, rice being restricted for export from Chennai Port [as regards 113(d)] and as the appellant had misdeclared the goods [as regards 113(i)]. On appeal against the order passed by the original authority, the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were declared in the Shipping Bill and the Shipping Bill was presented for assessment. 3. The learned SDR reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 4. After careful consideration of the facts of the case, I find that the appellants have raised valid grounds against the impugned order confiscating the rice presented for export and penalizing the appellants for rendering the export goods li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DGFT issued less than a week prior to the presentation of the impugned goods for export. Therefore, the appellants claim that they were not aware of the restriction has to be accepted. The appellants cannot be penalized on the ground that they had attempted to export rice rendering the same liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Act. The circumstances are adequate for coming to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
