9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection) Act, 1972 which deals with the prohibition of items mentioned in Schedule I and as per Schedule I, there is prohibition on dealings in trophies, animals articles, etc. Therefore, it is essential to obtain NOC from the Wild Life Regional Officer which the appellants had failed to obtain, which amounts to the imported wallets are the prohibited goods - absolute confiscation upheld. Whether these wallets in question can be allowed to be re-exported or not? - Held that:- As the customs cannot allow these wallets in India at all and they have to destroy the same. As it can be used in the country of origin, in that situation the re-export of these wallets is allowed - no redemption fine is imposable on the re-export of these wallets. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but allowed the non-offending goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and absolutely confiscated the wallets in question, the penalty was reduced to ₹ 15,000/- under Section 112 of the Act. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Durgesh Nadkarni the learned Advocate appeared before me on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the confiscation of the non-offending goods is wrongly done by the lower authorities as the items imported by the appellants were packed in their own packing and all such individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the issues involved in this case are as follows :- (a) Whether the confiscation of the non-offending goods by the lower authorities is correct or not? (b) Whether the absolute confiscation of the wallet in question is correct or not? (c) Whether the wallet in question can be allowed for re-export or not? (d) Whether the penalties imposed on the appellant is correct or not? 7(a). In this case the appellant has imported several items which were packed individually. As per invoice, each item as shown separately and the wallets which were found to be confiscated absolutely. The lower authorities has erred in holding the whole of the goods are liable for confiscati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. As it can be used in the country of origin, in that situation the re-export of these wallets is allowed. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Limited v. Collector of Customs reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.) that in the case of re-export, redemption fine or duty cannot be imposed. Accordingly, no redemption fine is imposable on the re-export of these wallets. 7(d). The next question with regards to the penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, as the appellant has imported prohibited goods without any NOC from the Wild Life Regional, the penalty on the appellant is correctly imposed by the lower authorities. Hence, I do not interfere with the confirmation of the penalty by the lower appellate authority and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
