9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... competent experts in the field categorically opined that the product did not conform to the prescribed norms to qualify for export without licence, the attempt to export such goods claiming inadmissible drawback involves violations attracting confiscation under Section 113(d) & (h), (i) & (ii) of the Act. – Held that the fine and penalty ordered are reasonable and do not call for any interference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt to export without licence in contravention of prohibition under Section 113(d), (h), (i) and (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). He offered the exporter an option to redeem the consignment on payment of a fine of Rs.15,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000/ on the exporter under Section 114 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Act. 2. Despite several notices issued to the appellants and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rotective coat did not necessarily mean that the leather was semi-finished. The deficiency did not warrant a finding that the product failed the norms prescribed in Public Notice No. 3-ETC (PN)/92-97. Therefore the order of confiscation deserved to be set aside. There was no mens rea and penalty was not called for. In Final Order No.1181 to 1184/2000 dated 21-8-2000 [2001 (130) E.L.T. 262 (Tri.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r export without licence, the attempt to export such goods claiming inadmissible drawback involves violations attracting confiscation under Section 113(d) (h), (i) (ii) of the Act. The order of the Tribunal relied on by the appellants involved a case of different facts. We find that the fine and penalty ordered are reasonable and do not call for any interference. The appeal filed by M/s. Devi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
