9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication has not been issued u/s 3 of FTDR, but has been issued u/s 5 of FTDR – hence section 11 of custom wouldn’t be applicable because goods are not prohibited – this point was not considered by Tribunal – ROM application allowed - C/316/2004 - 81/2008 - Dated:- 10-3-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri Laxmi Narayan, Advocate, for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31-3-2004 alleging that the appellant had not followed the procedure as provided under Section 3(3) of the FT (D R) Act, 1992 and therefore their imported goods are considered as prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 7,36,894/- and Rs. 3,68,447/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicable to the impugned goods; and in view of which (c) The confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the FT (D R) Act, 1992 is not correct. 4.1 As the ratio of the above decision has not been followed in this case it is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The DGFT Notification dated 16-2-2004 had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the confiscation was upheld. However, in respect of identical cases which were heard by this Tribunal at later dates, it was brought to our notice that the DGFT Notification dated 16-2-2004 which has been violated had not been issued under Section 3(3) of the FT (D R) Act, 1992, but issued under Section 5 of the FT (D R) Act, 1992. In view of the above, it was held that Section 11 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
