9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven by the Commissioner (A) in not confiscating the goods is valid - His finding that the goods were liable for confiscation was to enable him to impose penalties on the persons – revenue’s appeal is rejected - C/382/2006 - C/607/2008(PB), - Dated:- 10-11-2008 - S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) and P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Sumit Kumar, DR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted but the draw-back claims were pending to be settled. He has also imposed penalties on various parties held by him as concerned in the fraudulent exports. 3.2 In the connected case, in respect of seizure of 16 containers of goods mis-declared which were separately subjected to adjudication, the offending goods were absolutely confiscated. 3.3 Grievance of the department is that the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods [or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized,] an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority. The fine in lieu of confiscation imposed is in the nature of an option. If the party does not pay redemption fine, the only option available to the department is to take over the goods and dispose of the goods. The reasoning given by the Commissioner in not confiscating the goods is valid and there is no justification for interfering with the same. His finding that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
