9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12494 of 2015. 2. The petitioners are private limited company and its directors. The Customs Department had issued show cause notice for confiscation of goods and for imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 on the company as well as on the concerned director. This show cause notice culminated into an order in original being passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, in which, he, interalia, directed as under: "102. In the case of M/s.Kush Gems P. Ltd., holder of ICE5210018482 and Shri Nilesh Keda(defacto owner of the said goods), I hereby pass the following order: (i) With regard to the import of 1 consignment of rough diamonds (containing total 3 packets) totally weighing 975.180 carats presented for impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32.61 lacs on the petitioners, and directed that the bank guarantee of Rs. 32.61 lacs furnished by the petitioners may be appropriated against such redemption fine. Additionally, there were also fines imposed on the company as well as to the Directors. 4. The petitioners challenged such order of adjudicating authority before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal in part and disposed of the same as under: "28. In view of my above discussion, the appeals are partly allowed and accordingly, I modify the order of the adjudicating authority in respect of fine and penalty as under, in the interest of justice: 29. On payment of redemption fine and penalty if any, (7.5% penalty already paid by them as predeposit f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... metical or typographical mistake but removal of condition of penalty may be termed as significant change in the order in view of the Law Ministry's opinion and the CBEC circular dated 16.12.1999. Therefore, while agreeing that redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of goods may not have relation with penalty imposed for offence committed by the appellants; this authority is now functus officio after signing the order. The appellants may take recourse to legal remedies available to them in law against the final order passed by this authority." 7. Learned counsel Shri Paritosh Gupta for the petitioner submitted that there was no connection whatsoever between the penalties and the bank guarantee and the bonds for provisional rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity, cannot be exercised. Be that as it may, when we have peruse the original order passed by the adjudicating authority, in which the redemption fine and personal penalties were imposed. Clearly, the bank guarantees and bonds were to be executed by the petitioners for provisional release of the goods. This provisional release was substituted by confiscation and redemption fine. If therefore, the petitioners pay such redemption fine, they should be entitled to return of the bank guarantees and cancellation of the bonds. The redemption fine and the penalties having been modified by the Appellate Authority, direction ought to have been given for return of the bank guarantee and cancellation of the bonds upon the petitioners depositing substit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
