9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the same on payment of duty and redemption fine, the impugned goods having been confiscated shall vest in the Government - C/145 and 284/2006 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Shri Shovendu Banerjee, For the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Respondents Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal appearing for the respondents and Shri Joseph Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants M/s. Ishwar Impex. We have also heard Shri Shovendu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Sandip Exports pursuant to the order of the Honrable High Court of Madras dated 11.11.2009. 2.The brief facts of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent (ii) the importers claim that they had supplied raw materials covered by earlier imports to different job workers for manufacture of export goods was not correct (iii) when the subject import was made, the period of validity (12 months) of the advance licence had already expired and, therefore, the benefit of the Customs Notification was not available to the goods (The importer had misdeclared material particulars in the Bill of Entry by mentioning invalid advance licence and non-existent manufacturing facility) (iv) on account of such conduct, the imported goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) and (o) of the Customs Act and the importer was liable to be penalized under Section 112 (a) of the Act and (v) similar goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner did not heed the above plea, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court and obtained order dated 31.3.2006, which directed the Commissioner to allow the writ petitioner to participate in the adjudication proceedings and to prove their claim that they had become the owners of the goods by retiring original revised documents from the bank. Pursuant to the Honrable High Courts direction, learned Commissioner of Customs passed a fresh order after hearing the appellants. The operative part of the Commissioners order, which is under challenge in the present appeal, reads as under:- 1.I order the denial of benefit of duty exemption claimed under Customs Notification No.48/99 dated 29.04.1999 for the consignment cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.The learned counsel appearing for M/s. Sandip Exports submits before us that his clients did not have money to retire the documents from the bank in respect of the impugned goods and hence they could not clear the same from out of customs charge and that hey are also not claiming the impugned goods. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants M/s. Ishwar Impex submits that his clients are not concerned with any violations under the Customs Act, 1962 or under the EXIM Policy. It is the contention of the appellants that they are the owners of the impugned goods as the foreign exporter has sold the impugned goods to them against payment and they have retired the bank documents evidencing title to the goods. The learned counsel sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to pay the duty and clear the goods. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the appellants M/s. Ishwar Impex and M/s. Sandip Exports as well as the learned DR and we have also perused the case records. As the matter stands, we find that the adjudicating Commissioner has denied the duty exemption claimed under Customs Notification No. 48/99 dated 29.4.1999 which was claimed by M/s. Sandip Exports seeking the import of the impugned goods under the advance licence scheme. He has also demanded differential duty of Rs.20,34,882/- in respect of the goods. The adjudicating Commissioner has also ordered confiscation of the goods but has allowed M/s. Sandip Exports to redeem the same on payment of redemption fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said M/s. Sandip Exports came forward to clear the imported cargo, filed the Bill of Entry claiming exemption from customs duty and did pay the small amount of cess leviable on the impugned goods and obtained order for clearance out of customs control. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned goods have been rightly confiscated by the adjudicating Commissioner and has rightly not been allowed release to the subsequent claimant M/s. Ishwar Impex, the present appellants before us. In this connection the provisions of Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 is also relevant which envisages clearance of imported goods within 30 days after landing of the goods inIndia. In this case the goods were despatched to Chennai Port on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
