2013 (4) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 58/2008 (H-II) (D) Cus., dated 27-11-2008. 2. Heard the learned Superintendent (AR) for the appellant/department. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. The respondent appears to have imported a consignment of Canvas Office bags intended to be distributed to the employees of the newly opened br .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the goods imported. He has also held that the goods could not be treated as 'prohibited goods' in terms of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the original authority, the department has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Superintendent (AR) reiterates the grounds of appeal. 5. I have carefully considered t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods are apparently cleared and not available for seizure, the question of confiscating them at this stage also does not arise. There is no valid ground adduced to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has upheld the order of the original authority penalizing the respondent under Section 117 for violation of importing without IE code. 6. Appeal is, therefore, rejecte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X