9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 77, the proper officer on request of passenger detain such article for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India. Since passenger neither made true declaration nor requested for detention of goods for re-export, before customs at the time of his arrival at Airport. So the re-export of said goods cannot be allowed under Section 80 of Customs Act. - - - 102/2011-Cus - Dated:- 14-6-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. [Order]. The revision application has been filed by applicant Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad against the Order-in-Appeal No. 50/2010/CUS/ Commr. (A)-AHD, dated 29-4-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), Ahmedabad. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shri Hemal K. Shah, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. However he has allowed the re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. 4. Now aggrieved with the above order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahemdabad, the applicant have filed Revision Application before the Revisionary Authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 mainly on the following grounds :- 4.1 The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad has erred in appreciating the factual and legal position of the issue. The goods which have been confiscated, were being smuggled in by the passenger without declaring the same to the Customs and are in commercial quantity. In view of these facts, the appellate authority has erred in by allowing the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the case of Changzhou Yongfa Corduroy Co. Ltd. v. C.C., Bangalore reported in 2010 (251) E.L.T. 95 (Tri.-Bang.) held that, on a careful consideration of the case law on the subject, we find the ratio is that where the goods imported are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act, the same could not be allowed for re-export as held in Grand Prime Ltd. There was no provision for re-export in the facts of the case. 4.4 As laid down by the Apex Court, once the goods are confiscated, re-export cannot be allowed, the Commissioner (A) has erred in placing reliance on various case laws cited in his order. 5. A notice under Sec. 129 DD was Issued to the respondent who filed their counter reply vide their letter dated 31-12-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962. In applicant has filed revision application on 8-10-10 against impugned order-in-appeal dated 29-4-2010 received on 4-5-2010. In three months period of filing RA expired on 4-8-2010. As such the application filed with a delay of 2 months and 4 days. As per Section 129DD(2) of Customs Act, 1962 the Central Government can condone the delay upto 3 months. Considering the applicant s request and genuine reasons for condonation of delay. Government in exercise of power conferred in it under Section 129DD(2) of CA, 1962, condones the above said delay and takes up the revision application for decision on merit. 9. Government notes that department has mainly argued their goods confiscated cannot be allowed to be re-exported. In their reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
