9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having been granted to them. It is the simple contention of the appellants that 13 moulds were imported for the purpose of manufacturing the goods for export purpose. The 10 moulds were exported after the manufacture of the goods in terms of Notification No. 32/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997. They had obtained extension of time to re-export three moulds. The Commissioner had granted time, however they latter received further orders for manufacture of goods for export purpose. They manufactured the goods and exported the same and thereafter re-exported the moulds also. They have produced evidence to show that the goods were manufactured from these moulds and the remaining three moulds were also re-exported. 2.The learned Counsel submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Bona fides of appellants not doubted - Confiscation, fine and penalty set aside -Sections 111(o) and 125 ibid. 2. Intelecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 374 (Tri. - Del.) Penalty - Non compliance of condition of exemption notification - Switching systems imported for demonstration and testing by DOT availing exemption under Notification No. 3/89-Cus. subject to condition of re-export of same within six months or within extended time - Since validation and testing of imported equipment not completed by DOT, same could not be re-exported within six months of import - Duty demand not being confirmed against appellants for having violated any condition of notification, no penalty could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show cause notice not having invoked Section 111(m) and (o) of Customs Act, 1962, Commissioner (Appeals) gone beyond scope of show cause notice by confiscating goods thereunder - Order of Commissioner (Appeals) not sustainable. Evidence - Confessional inculpatory statements made by appellant retracted at first available opportunity when produced before Judicial Magistrate - Confessional statements not admissible - Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. Penalty - Customs - Conspiracy by appellants to entice the diplomats not proved beyond reasonable doubt, there being several material contradictions in the manner of seizure of goods - Benefit of doubt extended to appellants - Penalty imposed against appellant under Section 112 of Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 6. Continental Engine Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 914 (Tri. - Del.) Demand - Confiscation and penalty - 100% EOU - Machines imported - Conditions of Notification No. 53/97-Cus. violated by not installing the machines within one year from date of importation - Appellant installed machine after 2½ years and apply for extension of time which was rejected by department - Appellants explained that machines were old and there was some shortage of spares, therefore, they could not install the machine within one year - Installation of machine within the period of five years not disputed by the Revenue - Demand, confiscation and personal penalties set aside - However, penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 10. New Great Eastern Spinning Wvg. Co. Ltd. - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 319 (DGFT) EXIM - Export obligation - Bona fide default by Company under BIFR - Export obligation exceeded in value but default in quantity terms during stipulated period - But both the terms met after that period - Interim adjudication order already passed in the case - Liberal interpretation given to Public Notice No. 7(RE-98)/97-2002, dated 24-4-1998 - Export beyond stipulated period regularized and Company held not liable to penalty - Section 4(1) of Import and Export Control Act, 1947 - Section 20(2) of Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992. [paras 4, 5] 3.He also relied on the following ruling of Kerala Hi-Tech Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given by the Commissioner, however, he passed an order confirming duty and imposing penalty, as the three moulds had not been exported. The Commissioner has failed to see that the appellants had utilized the three moulds for manufacture of goods in terms of the Notification and the export obligation had been fulfilled. Although they did not export the three moulds within the time limit, as they had received further more orders for manufacture of goods. Since the appellants had re-exported it in terms of the shipping bills produced before the Tribunal and the export obligation has been fulfilled and the moulds have also been re-exported, therefore, in terms of the cited judgment, the question of confirmation of customs duty and imposing pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
