2009 (4) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner confiscated HMS weighing 88300 Kg. valued at Rs. 8 lakhs, covered by IGM/Item No. 12562/268 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, he gave an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 80,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,000/- on the applicants under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of manufacture of alloys steel casting and procures raw materials i.e. iron and steel scrap from indigenous sources or imports as per their requirement. The appellants placed a purchase order on an overseas supplier one M/s. S.K. International for supply of raw materials from South Africa. Pursuant to the said purchase order, iron and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uestion. A show cause notice was issued on 10-11-2006 by the Jt. Commissioner of Customs calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed on them. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Jt. Commissioner. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine and also imposed a penalty. On appeal being filed by the appellants, the appellate authority has upheld the order-in-original. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The ld. counsel for the appellants argued that it is a settled law that confiscation of goods should not be made unless the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on to redeem the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, then the duty on such goods does not become payable on imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation but has to be paid before seeking clearance of the goods, in such a case if the clearance of the goods is not sought for, the question of paying duty does not arise at all." 5. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Nagpur v. Ankit Pulps & Boards Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. - Mumbai) wherein it was held that when the goods were abandoned before seeking its clearance, no confiscation or penalty could be ordered. The appellants reiterated that there was no mala fide intention in abandoning the goods and that only contravention .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X