2018 (6) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enalty - Held that:- The containers which were ordered to be confiscated were never seized and released provisionally nor the containers are available for confiscation. In such case, the confiscation of goods and consequent redemption fine cannot be imposed - redemption fine set aside. Penalty - Held that:- There is admitted violation of condition of N/N. 104/94-Cus dated 16.3.1994 inasmuch as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Department is that 31 containers were re-exported but after the prescribed time period of 2 six months, therefore, the adjudicating authority confiscated 26 containers valued at ₹ 7,80,000/- and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/- and 5 containers valued at ₹ 1,60,000/- and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 20,000/-. A penalty of ₹ 1 lakh was also imposed. 2. Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 13 (294) ELT 259 (Tri-Bang). (b) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2001 (132) ELT 340 (Tri-Mum) (c) Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2014 (314) ELT 557 (Tri-Ahmd). 3. Shri K.M. D Souza, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X