9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption fine and penalty was not challenged by the importer and hence the same was not liable to be interfered with by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal filed by the Revenue - set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. - Application C/S/716/09 and C/451/09 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2011 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearance: Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for appellant 1. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity, the proper officer of customs allowed clearance of the dogs on 31.1.08. However, on subsequent verification of import documents, it was noted that the importer did not have Import-Export Code (IEC) and also did not produce Special Import Licence as required under the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. The importer was asked to offer his explanation, whereupon he stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the valuation done by the Assistant Commissioner for the reason stated in para 5 of the impugned order. The appellate authority also ordered for refund of the amounts of fine and penalty which had been paid by the importer at the time of clearing the animals. In the present appeal of the Revenue, the only grievance raised by the appellant is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The only question is whether it was open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to order for refund of fine and penalty to the importer. The only answer to this question would be in the negative. As rightly pointed out by the learned SDR, the Assistant Commissioner's order relating to confiscation, redemption fine and penalty was not challenged by the importer and hence the same was not liable to be inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
