2017 (11) TMI 1527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of Justice - confiscation, redemption fine and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri A.P. Mathur (Advocate) for Appellant(s) Shri Mohd. Altaf (Assistant Commissioner) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary Heard the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the findings of this Tribunal contained in the Final Order dated 29.07.2015 being Final Order No.53724-53737/2015 wherein it has been held as follows:- "We have considered the contentions of both sides. There is force in the contention of the appellants that mobile phones are not notified under Section 123 of the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n Revenue and the fact that listed documents were not available was no ground for holding the goods as smuggled goods." 3. The learned counsel further drew our attention that in view of the categorical finding of this Tribunal that the allegation of smuggling is not established, then holding the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, placing reliance on the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pacific India Trade Concern v/s CC (Preventive) 2014(307) ELT 650 (Del.), is contrary to the findings and the reliance on the ruling of the High Court is misplaced. Admittedly, it is a case of wrong confiscation of seized goods which were not seized at the time of import clearance or in the vicinity of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o stands modified accordingly. 6. On going through the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pacific India Trade Concern (supra) we find that the facts are different in the said ruling as it was a case where the importer had imported various cosmetics in retail packs for sale to the end users. The goods were cleared under bills of entry in terms of the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act and Rules. The MRP at which the goods imported were proposed to be sold had been declared for the purpose of additional customs duty. Though the goods were cleared on payment of duty, the customs authorities discovered that the MRP stickers were not fixed on the goods. Such facts are not obtained in the present appeals and as such the said jud .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X