9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Appeal is disposed of - C/1296/09 & 1297/09-Mum - - - Dated:- 7-7-2011 - Mr M.V.Ravindran, Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Shri S.S.Sekhon, Advocate for Appellants Shri Novneet, SDR for Respondent Per :M.V.Ravindran These 2 stay applications are filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of redemption fine and penalties imposed on the applicants by the adjudicating authority. 2. After hearing both sides for sometime on the stay applications, we find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this juncture. Hence, after waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amounts involved, we take up the appeals themselves for disposal. 3. The relevant facts arise for consideration are, based on intelligence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contention raised by the appellant and discarded their submission and passed the following order:- Order In view of the above discussions and findings, following orders are passed. (i) The goods under all three Shipping Bills No. 6764863, 6764854, 6764846 all dated 20.10.2008 of total declared FOB value of Rs. 1,40,30,846.49/- is confiscated under Section 113(i) of Customs Act, 1962, on the ground of mis-declaration of quantity, classification and value. However, the exporter is given an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand only) under Section 125 of Customs Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorites have totally disregarded the request made by the appellant for release of the goods for export. 2.2 It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that 65%, over and above the value declared by the exporter for procurement of the goods is the amount that the appellant may have incurred as expenses as claimed by the appellant. . It is his submission that the value declared by the appellant and the value accepted by the adjudicating authority there is a difference of only 13%. It is his submission that as per the clarification given by the Board vide Circular No.15/97-Cus dated 3.6.97, the lower authorities should have ascertained the present market value of the goods sought to be exported. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 246 (Del.) 7. E.S.I. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA -2003 (156) E.L.T. 344 (Cal.) 8. VILAYAT HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA -1997 (95) E.L.T. 19 (M.P.) 9. DHIRAJLAL AMRITLAL MEHTA Vs.UNION OF INDIA -1982 E.L.T. 273 (Bom.) 4. The ld.SDR on the other hand would submit that seizure is one thing and detention is another thing. It is his submission that the goods were detained as they were brought to the customs area and the check list declaration was made as to the description, quantity and value. He would submit that it is an admitted fact that in atleast one shipping bill, there was a misdeclaration of the quantity. As regards the submission made by the ld.counsel, on the point of check list being only an entry inward, it is his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g bill, there is misdeclaration of the quantity, inasmuch as the quantity was found short by the officers on examination. It is also an admitted fact that the purchase value of the goods sought to be exported was Rs. 72,55,250/-. It is also undisputed that the appellants had declared the value of the consignment as Rs. 1,40,30,846/-. At the outset, we would like to record our findings as regards misdeclaration and the liability to confiscation of the goods. It is seen that there is no denial of misdeclaration of the description in one of the shipping bills and there being short quantity in one of the shipping bill and the value is misdeclared in all the shipping bills. 8. The assessee s contention as regards shortage of the goods, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
