9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation but, however, has also granted an option for redemption of goods on payment of fine has also not questioned by the Revenue. Section 125 ibid. prescribes for providing an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, in case of any goods the importation or exportation of which was prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, subject to the conditions laid down thereunder. Such option could be offered to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, to the person from whose possession such goods were seized and hence, the appellant could be treated as other person from whose possession the impugned goods have been seized. The only short-coming here is the quantitative restriction and hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant submitted before the authorities inter alia that their Bill of Lading dated 15/11/2019 was prior to the amendment of import policy. The authority thereafter, based on the request of the importer, forwarded the Bill of Entry for assessment on first check basis. 2. The adjudicating authority after considering the replies by importer and its customs broker, vide impugned Order-in-Original dated 30/01/2020 has observed inter alia that even though the Bill of Lading was dated prior to the Notification, but, however, the Bill of Entry was filed after the issuance of Notification S O 1479 (E) dated 29/03/2019. The authority has also observed that since the importer did not produce any authorization as mandated under the FTP, hence there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of the above, the adjudicating authority has ordered for confiscation of the goods covered under the impugned Bill of Entry for contravention of Section 111(d) ibid. read with Trade Notice No. 6/2019-2020 dated 16/4/2019 of DGFT, but however, has granted an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) under Section 125 ibid. He has also imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) under Section 112 ibid. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the fine and penalty. 3. Heard Shri P.A Augustian, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri P. Rama Holla, the learned Superintendent (AR) for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be imposed on the importer and that for the same reason port restriction would also be not applicable to the importer. The only shortcoming in the impugned import, as found by the adjudicating authority, is that the quantitative restriction imposed vide Trade Notice No. 6/2019 ibid. would apply for which reason alone the goods in question were held to be liable for confiscation. It was thus held that the above amounted to violation of Section 111(d) ibid. and that the importer was liable for penalty under Section 112. 5.2. The findings in the impugned order as regards non-violation of minimum import price as well as port restriction has attained finality, as there being no specific challenge by the Revenue. The very fact that the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
