2016 (1) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntion is that as per the provisions of Para 2.3 of the Hand Book of Procedure at the relevant time the appellant could not have sold mould without prior permission from DGFT. - Held that:- it is not in dispute that goods were sold and re-exported - relevant para of the Hand Book Procedure makes no distinction between sale within India and sale outside India and therefore there is violation of prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity of the old moulds and it is claimed these were of no use to them. After one year and nine months they exported back these moulds to the supplier. Revenue's contention is that as per the provisions of Para 2.3 of the Hand Book of Procedure at the relevant time the appellant could not have sold mould without prior permission from DGFT. The case was adjudicated. Goods were confiscated, redemp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orted. We note that relevant para of the Hand Book Procedure makes no distinction between sale within India and sale outside India and therefore there is violation of provisions of Import and Export Policy/Hand Book of Procedure. Confiscation of the goods therefore is upheld. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. We do not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X