9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods under seizure for confiscation for re-export. The petitioner has not received any notice from any higher forum than the first respondent, by which, the order in adjudication passed by the first respondent is under challenge. In the absence of any appeal against the said order of the first respondent, there is no legal impediment for the respondents to act in terms of the order in adjudication dated 14.7.2010 and cause release of the confiscated goods on payment fine and penalty for the purpose of re-export. - There is no denial with regard to the availability of the goods by the customs authorities even after a period of 5 years. The note issued by the Superintendent of Customs dated 21.09.2015 supports the claim of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provisions of Customs Act 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act 1962), by order dated 28.2.2009. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that the said order dated 28.02.2009 was challenged before CESTAT and as per order dated 30.07.2009 a denova adjudication proceedings had taken place with regard to the seizure of goods from the petitioner and ultimately, the order in original came to be passed on 14.7.2010 with the following conditions. I. I order for confiscation of assorted precious/semi-precious stones totally weighing 19367 carats and re-valued at ₹ 11,97,885/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five only) (CIF) under Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(l) and 111(m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marking a copy to the third respondent for the purpose of exercising the option of redemption for the re-export. The said communication dated 02.02.15 said to have been received by the authority was not taken into consideration. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 125 of the Customs Act for the purpose of re-export provides redemption. Because of financial constraint, the petitioner was not in a position to redeem the seized goods within the period of 45 days and even after expiry of 45 days as stipulated in the order of Commissioner of Customs, the department was also not able to dispose of the goods till date. According to him, it is undisputed fact that the semi-precious stones under seizure are still avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice from any higher forum than the first respondent, by which, the order in adjudication passed by the first respondent is under challenge. In the absence of any appeal against the said order of the first respondent, there is no legal impediment for the respondents to act in terms of the order in adjudication dated 14.7.2010 and cause release of the confiscated goods on payment fine and penalty for the purpose of re-export. 10. There is no denial with regard to the availability of the goods by the customs authorities even after a period of 5 years. The note issued by the Superintendent of Customs dated 21.09.2015 supports the claim of the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the authority is not explained properly in the counter aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
