9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-appeal No. 12/2008 Misc Air (Deptt) dt. 19-2-2008. Since the issue involved in both the applications are identical they are being disposed off by a common order. Since the issue is in a narrow compass the petitions are disposed off and the appeals themselves are taken up for final disposal. 2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants herein imported in their baggage Diana Air Gun S4/T05 , the said air guns were declared by the appellants to the authorities. The lower authority ordered for the confiscation of the impugned goods with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and personal penalty and appropriate duty. Appellant herein discharged the duty liability and also paid redemption fine, per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand would submit that since the import of air guns are prohibited, the adjudicating authority could not have given the option of clearing the goods on payment of redemption fine. It is the contention that these goods are being to be absolutely confiscated has been imported by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the adjudicating authority has the power under the provisions of Customs Act, to offer of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of prohibited/restricted goods those are confiscated. 6. In order to appreciate the entire issue, the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 needs to be read, I may read the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority to offer redemption of goods for a fine in lieu of confiscation, even in respect of prohibited goods. The adjudicating authority in this case has invoked the provisions of Section 125, to offer redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, to the appellants herein. It can also to be seen from the order of the ld. Commissioner order that he has not given any reason to come to conclusion as to how the adjudicating authority s order in offering redemption fine, is wrong. 6. I find force in the contention raised ld. Counsel that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gauri Enterprises (Supra). The ratio as has been laid down by the Division Bench of the Tribunal s is as under- Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer thinks, fit. The Tribunal in the case of Gauri Enterprises (supra) relied upon by the Appellant has gone into in details on this issue held that absolute confiscation should be an exception rather than a rule and due to change in the object and reasons under the Import and Export Act and Foreign Trade Act resort to absolute confiscation should be an exception and not the rule. The Tribunal after relying upon the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. 552 and after noting that in the case of other importers the same goods were confiscated and the same were allowed to be released on payment of fine. In the present case also the same goods were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
