9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Mr. Justice A. Y. Kogje ) 1. The petitioners before this Court challenge action of recovery of redemption fine from the petitioners and also for a prayer to declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount as fine in lieu of confiscation of any goods. 2. The brief facts necessary for the present case are as under:- 2.1 Petitioner No.1 is a charitable trust registered under the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act. This show cause notice came to be adjudicated by Order in Original dated 31.03.2005, wherein the adjudicating authority passed an order to absolutely confiscate the goods of 22 bales which could not be located and seized by the DRA, which were part of the goods imported and as the goods were not available, fine in lieu o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initial action of the show cause notice was against 10 persons and since the petitioner himself was not the ultimate importer, atleast, the issue of redemption of fine cannot be proposed against him. In the show cause notice, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioners are responsible for importing the goods. Learned Counsel also took us through the Order in Original, where also finding is g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 25.09.2001 having approx. market value Rs. 15.26 lakhs should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However these goods are not available for confiscation". Neither in the body of the show cause notice, nor in the ultimate proposal noted above, there is anything to suggest that the petitioner trust was called upon to state why for non-availability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of fine in lieu of confiscation relatable to the petitioner and in absence of any directions contained in the order-inoriginal that such fine would be borne by the petitioner, it was simply not open for the department to seek recovery thereof from the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, communications dated 04.03.2015 and 30.03.2015 are quashed. Petition is allowed to this extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
