9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een settled in various judgments, in particular, the judgment in case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus, Nashik[2009 (1) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI] supports the present case. In view of the settled legal position on this issue, we find that adjudicating authority was not suppose to confiscate the goods. As regard the redemption fine, redemption fine is imposed only for redeeming the goods which was under confiscation. The goods are not available, redeeming such goods is out of question, therefore redemption fine of ₹ 7,50,000/- is not sustainable. As regard the penalty of ₹ 5 lacs imposed on the appellant, we find that firstly confiscation is not sustainable. As regard the mis-declaration of the goods th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct composition of the exports goods, the appellant even was not entitle to claim DEBP benefit. As regard the issue in respect of valuation of the goods it was admitted by the Exporters that the real FOB value works out to ₹ 15 lacs as against the declared value of ₹ 27,89,568/-. In the adjudication, the Commissioner has passed following order: i) I hold the goods exported vide Shipping Bill No. 5104195 dated 18-12-2000 of declared FOB value of ₹ 27,89,568/- liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, however, having regard to the non availability of the exported goods for confiscation, I impose a fine of ₹ 7,50,000/- on the exporters in lieu of confiscation. ii) I impose a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is admitted fact that the goods were never seized or not released provisionally on the execution of bond and bank guarantee therefore in case when the goods were not seized and released provisionally and the goods are not available then confiscation of such goods is not correct which has been settled in various judgments, in particular, the judgment in case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus, Nashik[2009(235) ELT 623(Tri. LB)] supports the present case. In view of the settled legal position on this issue, we find that adjudicating authority was not suppose to confiscate the goods. As regard the redemption fine, redemption fine is imposed only for redeeming the goods which was under confiscation. The good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
