9911796707
TMI BlogImproper Importation – Confiscation of Goods & Levy of PenaltyX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6th June and 1st July 1983 and claimed clearance against licence dated 29.6.1981. By the time the goods were imported, a Public Notice No. 29/81 dated 5.6.1981 had already been issued putting beef tallow in the canalized items list and not permitting the same under O.G.L. items. Collector of Customs, Bombay had confiscated the consignments of beef tallow and gave the party option to re-export the impugned goods and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5 Crore under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal has however upheld the party's appeal holding that the import of beef tallow under OGL was not unlawful and therefore questions of confiscation, redemption fine or imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act 1962 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t part of Section 112 reads thus:- "112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person- (a) who is relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) shall be liable- (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other laws for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees." As against this, Section 125 empowers the concerned officer to confiscate the goods which are illegally or improperly imported. After confiscation of the goods under the said section, the Collector of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in lieu of such confiscation for return of the goods and the fine is also limited up to the market price of the goods. Therefore, levy of fine in lieu of confiscation is in addition to levy of penalty imposable under Section 112. (emphasis supplied)." 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also inter-alia held that - "It is well settled law that in case where SLP is dismissed without assigning any reasons, that order would not constitute a binding precedent. (Re: Ajit Kumar Rath Vs/State of Orissa(1999) Supp. 4SCR 302)." 5. The judgment is in favour of Revenue. I am directed to request you to circulate the above to all the field formations under your charge for information. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. F. No. 385/253/92-JC - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
