9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of six months from the date of import. In the event, the steamer agent is constrained and is unable to export the containers within six months, such steamer agent may apply for extension of time showing sufficient and genuine cause. 2. The Appellant had executed a Bond of Rs. 14,40,000/- in terms of the said Notification and in respect of 36 containers imported under IGM No. 22001 dated 14th September 2006 and a Bond of Rs. 15,60,000/- in respect of 39 containers imported under IGM No. 22423 dated 06th November 2006. Therefore, the said 36 containers were to be exported by 13th March 2007 and the said 39 containers were to be exported by 05th May 2007, as per the conditions of the notification. The Appellant failed to export the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. Penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In respect of the 39 containers, the Adjudicating Authority considered the depreciated value of the containers as Rs. 30,79,820/- and accordingly, demanded a duty of Rs. 10,36,390/- along with interest. The confiscation of the said containers was also confirmed with the option of redemption at Rs. 2,20,000/- under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. Penalty of Rs. 1,60,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 5. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, vide order dated 02nd August 2017, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for determination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 28 of the Customs Act along with interest. An amount of Rs. 10,36,390/- paid by the Appellant was appropriated towards the said demand. Penalty of Rs. 2,60,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act and an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- paid by the Appellant was appropriated towards the said penalty. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present appeals before this Tribunal. 9. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 10. I find that it is undisputed that the Appellant had imported 75 containers and had availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 104/94 dated 16th March 1994. Under the said notification, the Appellant was required to re-export the containers within six months. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Appellant failed to seek extension of time for re-export of the said containers. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned orders have arrived at the value of the containers without any application of mind. I, therefore, pass the following order: i) I uphold the valuation of the 36 containers at Rs. 28,24,034/-, as arrived at by the First Adjudicating Authority and accordingly, uphold the demand of duty of Rs. 9,50,316/- along with interest. The Appellant has already paid the duty amount of Rs. 9,50,316/- vide challan No. 244 dated 22nd January 2008, which has been appropriated in the impugned order. ii) Further, I uphold the order of confiscation of the 36 containers and reduce the redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
