9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal, the appeal filed by him is dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Now, we take up the appeal filed by M/s Western Silks and Shri Suraj Karan Baradia. 4. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein M/s Western Silks is a proprietary concern and an EOU having a letter of permission for manufacturing of processed silk yarns. In the case in hand, there is an order of confiscation of the goods sought to be exported by M/s Western Silks on the charge of over-valuation and redemption fine is imposed in lieu of confiscation and penalties have been imposed on M/s Western Silks and Shri Suraj Karan Baradia, the proprietor of the firm under the provisions of Section 114 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the allegation of over-valuation cannot sustain. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shiva Prakash Aradhya Vs CC - MANU/CB/0014/2003 [=2003(153) ELT 352 ((Tri-Bang)] for the proposition that the penalty under Section 114 is called only in case of dutiable goods other than prohibited goods. It is his submission that the goods covered by the shipping bills i.e. silk waste and semi-processed goods are not dutiable goods and hence the judgment of the Tribunal will be covering this issue in his favour. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has specifically recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xported. In the nutshell, there is no dispute as to the fact that there was over-valuation of the consignment of silk waste and semi-processed silk material which was sought to be exported. We agree with the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority that such goods are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962. Since we have upheld the liability for confiscation under Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962, the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority in lieu of such confiscation is also correct as the goods were cleared for export by the lower authorities on execution of bond and bank guarantee as per the direction of their lordships in Civil Petition No.7756 of 2005. We find no reason to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
