9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Noida for re-conditioning who had not cleared it from the Customs. No redemption fine has been imposed upon the applicant nor has any notice been issued to the applicant for confiscation of the jewellery. If Revenue succeeds in its appeal before the Hon ble High Court, the penalties imposed upon the applicant may be restored. The applicant is directed to submit a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi with a copy of this Order and keep the Bank Guarantee alive till the disposal of the appeal filed by the Department before the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad - application disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the records. The Final order disposed of 10 appeals filed by various appellants including the applicant herein against the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. As far as the applicant is concerned, penalties were imposed under Section 112, 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 by the impugned order which were set aside by the Final order. The relevant paragraphs of the Final Order were as follows: "22. In view of the forgoing, we find no reasons to uphold penalties upon the said appellants. Accordingly, the same are set aside. 23. The appellant have also claimed the return of 38,434.710 gm of gold jewellery exported by them under the cover of invoice No. 58534 from Singapore to New Delhi vide Singapore Airlines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had exported jewellery to M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Noida, who, however, had not filed the Bill of Entry and had not cleared the consignment. The jewellery was seized by DRI while it was in the Airport. No notice proposing confiscation of this jewellery was issued to the applicant, nor was any redemption fine imposed upon on the applicant in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Only a notice proposing to impose penalties under Section 112, 114 and 114AA was served upon the appellant and the penalties were accordingly imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order which were set aside in the Final order. It was also held in the Final Order that the appellant may reexport the jewellery since the consignee had not cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay applications, which are pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, the Final Order may not be given effect to. 8. After considering rival submissions, we find that insofar as the applicant is concerned, the Final order has only set aside the penalties under Section 112, 114 and 114AA. It is undisputed that the jewellery was sent by the appellant to M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Noida for re-conditioning who had not cleared it from the Customs. No redemption fine has been imposed upon the applicant nor has any notice been issued to the applicant for confiscation of the jewellery. If Revenue succeeds in its appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, the penalties imposed upon the applicant may be restored. 9. In the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
