9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is the holder of import export code an is engaged in the business of import and export of earth moving equipments. The appellant imported earth moving machinery parts from USA through Bangalore Airport and filed two bills of entry bearing No. 004350 dated 19.02.1993 for clearance through their customs house agent M/s. Paven Enterprises. However, the officers seized the goods on 19.03.1993 on the allegation that the imported goods have been manufactured by KOMATSU in Japan and the appellant has filed to produce the country of origin certificate. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1993 rejected the transaction value of the imported goods and thereby re-fixed the transaction value by enhancing the same by 50%. The Collector also ordered for confiscation of the imported goods and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the Appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of appeal, the respondent auctioned the goods 10.10.2000 for a lesser amount as against the value of goods mentioned in mahazar which was Rs. 28,00,000/- without any notice to the appellant and in violation of the directions issued by this Court to release the goods in favour of the appellant on provisional basis. The Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 30.01.2002, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CUSTOMS' (2005) 180 E.L.T. 152 (CAL.), 'MOHAMMED YASIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE (2005) 189 E.L.T. 56 (TRI-BANG), 'SHILPS IMPEX Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (2002) 140 E.L.T. 3 (SC), 'RATAN LAN JAIN' Vs. UOI (2017) 349 E.L.T. 468 (CAL.), 'CC UTTAR PRADESH & UTTARANCHAL Vs. PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD. (2014) 309 E.L.T. 598 (ALL), 'COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) Vs. ASHAN WARIS' (2017) 345 ELT 86 (CAL.) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that the action of the respondent in confiscating and in putting the confiscated goods to sale, has been upheld by the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
