2017 (9) TMI 759

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds. The redemption fine is to be imposed for the limited purpose of re-export of the goods - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellant filed miscellaneous application seeking early hearing of the appeal and filed affidavit to state that the imported goods are still lying with the department. That appellant has to incur huge demurrage and container charges and the goods will become obsolete in the case of delay to be realised to the appellant. Since we were satisfied with the reasons given for early hearing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant had undervalued the goods and not declared the televisions other than the declared goods and thus confiscated the goods under Section 111(d), 111(i) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. 2.2 The appellant then filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and vide order dated 12.01.2017, the High Court directed to release the 60 Nos. of Air conditions upon deposit of differential duty of ₹ 3,27,141/- upon execution of personal Bond at ₹ 8,75,160/- and directed the authority to consider the request of the appellant for re-export of 41 Nos. of LED Television sets. 2.3 A SCN dated 24.08.2016 was issued by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (SIIB) proposing enhancement of the value of the imported goods of 60 Nos. of Gen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further submitted that they had placed order for only 80 nos. of Air conditioners and were not aware about other goods being stuffed in the container until it was brought out by the department. He stated that the goods imported are neither restricted goods nor prohibited goods and department has also accepted that the above goods are free to import and the supplier also agreed to take back the cargo. In such situation the imposition of such huge fine and penalty for re-export is baseless. He prayed that the redemption fine and penalty may be set aside. 4. Ld. AR, Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC, appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the orders of the authorities below. He argued that the appellant has mis-declared the goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X