9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they have been allowed to be re-exported at a lower value to a different buyer will not automatically redeem or erase the act of attempting to export those goods initially by misdeclaration of quantity and value and accordingly, they should have been confiscated in terms of Section 113 of the Act and if found proper, given the exporter an option to redeem the goods in lieu of confiscation on imposition of fine under Section 125 ibid - confiscation upheld. Redemption fine - Held that: - for the limited purpose of arriving at the quantum of redemption fine, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is being remanded to the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. C/283/2007 - Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US$ 3.250 to US$ 0.900. Pursuant to this request, consignment which had been placed under seizure was allowed to be exported on provisional basis on execution of personal bond from exporter for an amount of ₹ 61,17,000 and after amendment of unit price to US$ 0.90. Subsequently, SCN dt. 26.06.2006 was issued proposing confiscation of the goods under Section 113 (d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty on various persons under Section 114 (iii) ibid. In adjudication, lower authority, vide impugned order dated 15-03-2007, imposed penalties, of ₹ 10 lakhs on Shri M.P.S. Bharara, ₹ 2 lakhs on Shri Avinash Maheswari and ₹ 50,000/- each on Shri N. Saravanan and Shri J.R. Sathiamoorthy, under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act very clearly states that a penalty is liable to be imposed on any person, who in relation to the goods, by his acts has rendered the goods liable to confiscation. The adjudicating authority has not passed any order for confiscation of the goods, but has passed an order penalizing the persons related to the goods under Section 114 of the Customs Act. This is not legally correct. 3. On 07.06.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, for appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Ld. A.R, reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that in view of the said grounds, confiscation of the goods was very much merited. 4. Respondent was not represented. 5. After going through the facts on record, it emerges that Customs authorities fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been found to be mis-declared in terms of quantity, and also overinvoiced to claim ineligible amount of drawback. In these circumstances, when the lower authority has arrived at such findings and conclusions, by corollary, the goods also became liable for confiscation under Section 113 (d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The fact that they have been allowed to be re-exported at a lower value to a different buyer will not automatically redeem or erase the act of attempting to export those goods initially by misdeclaration of quantity and value and accordingly, they should have been confiscated in terms of Section 113 of the Act and if found proper, given the exporter an option to redeem the goods in lieu of confiscation on imposition of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
