9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant by the respondent department on 10th June, 2019 since, Section 128A(3) empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as may be necessary and pass such order - Therefore, when a request was also made by the respondent-department to the appellant to re-export the goods as noted in Order-in-Original and appellant belatedly accepted the same, there was no impediment on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) in accepting such request and reducing the financial burden, which may be incurred by the respondentdepartment for destruction of the imported goods. It is also a fit case to reduce the penalties to the barest minimum since re-export option itself was initiated by the respondent-department and appellant agreed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, Order-in-Original was passed on the same date, for which the request could not be considered. He further submitted that under the circumstances, when imported goods cannot be sold in the market after confiscation also for want of BIS certification, the same would be a liability on the Customs department to destroy the goods. He earnestly prayed for permission to re-export the goods and to reduce the penalties to make the appellant less burdensome as re-export would itself incur financial loss to the appellant that would be a sufficient deterrent for such unauthorised import. 3. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, while a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her inquiry as may be necessary and pass such order. As he thinks just a proper ... . Therefore, when a request was also made by the respondent-department to the appellant to re-export the goods as noted in Order-in-Original and appellant belatedly accepted the same, there was no impediment on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) in accepting such request and reducing the financial burden, which may be incurred by the respondentdepartment for destruction of the imported goods. Under the circumstances, I find it is also a fit case to reduce the penalties to the barest minimum since re-export option itself was initiated by the respondent-department and appellant agreed to comply the same. Hence the order. ORDER 6. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
