9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and the appellant are permitted to import rough marble blocks subject to payment of penalty as provided for under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act. In the instant case, the appellant has paid the penalties of Rs. 46 lakhs imposed on them by the DGFT authorities. Order of the Adjudicating authority is totally based on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Ltd., cited supra. However, since the said decision has been set aside the by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in [2011 (3) TMI 112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the impugned order cannot be sustained in law - Therefore, Adjudicating authority is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was challenged by the appellant before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide interim order dated 14-8-2002 permitted release of the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 1.25 crore and penalty of ₹ 24 lakhs. The appeal was finally disposed of by this Tribunal vide order No. A/147/10/CSTB/C-II, dated 12-5-2010 wherein the order of the Adjudicating authority was set aside and the Adjudicating authority was directed to take a fresh decision in the light of the regularisation of the import of marble blocks by the appellant under licence No. 0310105747, dated 11-10-2001 vide letter dated 17-3-2006 of the licensing authorities. It is as per the direction of this Tribunal, the impugned order has been passed. 2.2 In the impugned order, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vikrant Overseas v. Union of India reported in 2000 (123) E.L.T. 486 (P H) and the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Autolite (India) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 13 (Bom.). In the said Larger Bench s order it was held as follows : (i) The licensing authorities do not have powers to amend the licence retrospectively (ii) The Customs authorities cannot challenge the powers of the licensing authority for amendment of the licence. 3.3 The learned counsel submits that this decision of the Larger Bench was challenged before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case reported in 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, are attracted and once the goods are liable to confiscation, the appellant is liable to pay penalty. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Taking into account the fact of payment of fine and penalty made by the appellant at the time of provisional release of the goods, we consider the same to be sufficient for the purpose of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for consideration and disposal. 6. The purpose of regularisation of licence is to rectify/cure the defects, if any, in respect of the transaction and by its very nature, regularisation action is retrospective. What can be reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
