9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue, we proceed to decide their appeal itself, inasmuch as a short issue is involved. Accordingly, we have heard both sides. 2. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced redemption fine to Rs.25,000/- and penalty to Rs.75,000/-, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. As per facts on records, the respondents imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me being in force, shall be liable for confiscation. The impugned goods valued at Rs.42, 34,481.37 appeared to have been imported against the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and therefore liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. The respondent vide their letter dated 17.9.10 requested for re-export of the goods as the supplier has agreed to take back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport licence in Form-10A required for import of drugs specified in Schedule X. The appellant applied and could not get the same. The appellant applied for re-export of the impugned goods and the adjudicating authority allowed the same on payment of fine and penalty. There is no allegation of deliberate attempt to import the impugned goods without required licence. Further the appellant has submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that there is no malafide on the part of the importer does not stand rebutted by the Revenue. Need to re-export of the impugned goods arose only because the importer could not get licence from the Drugs Controller of India. There is no dispute that the goods were correctly declared by the by the appellant. In such, a scenario, we find no infirmit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
