9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion, imported by the appellant, under Bills of Entry Nos. 3618504, dated 26-5-2011, 4324694, dated 10-8-2011 and 4376254, dated 17-8-2011, on the appellant furnishing a Bank Guarantee for a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs, as redemption fine, to the satisfaction of the first respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - On furnishing such Bank Guarantee, the first respondent shall release the goods in question within a period of two weeks thereafter. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD) No. 1523 of 2013 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2013 - M. Jaichandren and M. Venugopal, JJ. Shri Yasod Varadhan, Senior Counsel for B. Sathish Sundar, for the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, read with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. It had been further submitted that, on examining the containers, the officials concerned had noticed that the packages containing the goods did not have the full name and the address of the manufacturer and therefore, they had stated that the appellant had imported the goods in question, in contravention of Rule 32(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, read with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the officers concerned had seized the entire quantity of 506 Metric Tons of Monosodium Glutamate , imported by the appellant, in 22 containers, under Mahazers dated 1-8-2011 and 2-8-2011. At the time of the seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. The first respondent had also stated that the appellant would be liable to pay penalty on the goods, imported by it, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, after having rendered the said goods liable for confiscation and had asked as to why the goods imported by the appellant should not be ordered to be re-exported at the cost of the appellant. 7. On hearing the appellant, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, rejecting the declared unit value of the goods imported by the appellant, under the Bills of Entry Nos. 3618504, dated 26-5-2011, 4324694 dated 10-8-2011 and 4376254, dated 17- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 10-8-2011 and 4376254, dated 17-8-2011, on the appellant furnishing a Bank Guarantee equivalent to the redemption fine, payable by the appellant, as per order of the Commissioner of Customs, dated 6-3-2013. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the Commissioner of Customs had quantified the amount of redemption fine payable by the appellant as ₹ 30 lakhs, as per the order, dated 6-3-2013. He has further submitted that the appellant would furnish the Bank Guarantee, for the said amount, to the satisfaction of the first respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On the appellant furnishing such Bank Guarantee, the first respondent may be directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
