9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a consignment of seeds of almonds (Non Parell Variety) from California, U.S.A. and had also filed the requisite bill of entry. The Petitioner had sought clearance of the said goods from R.E.P. licence and in the said licence, there was an endorsement for import of "seeds". The Petitioner's contention is that what is imported was "seeds" and not "almonds". The Collector of Customs by the aforesaid order dated 8-6-1989 came to the conclusion that the aforesaid imported goods were not admissible for import in terms of the replenishment licence produced by the Petitioner and accordingly passed an order of confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act r/w Section 3 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Apart from confiscating, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein the Division Bench was dealing with an identical issue of import of almonds under REP licence, had clearly held that the same could not come within the words "seeds", however the Division Bench in the said case, had reduced redemption fine to 50% and personal penalty also to 50% and had observed as under :- "Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, in our judgment, the proper order would be to reduce the redemption fine and the penalty to 50% of what was levied by the Additional Collector. It is required to be stated that while admitting the appeal, the Division Bench of this Court had directed that the appellants should pay 50% of the redemption fine and personal penalty and for the remaining 50%, bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, however in the light of the judgment of our Division Bench, the Petitioner's liability to pay redemption fine will be reduced to Rs. 9 lakhs instead of Rs. 18 lakhs and similarly, penalty would be Rs. 1 lakh instead of Rs. 2 lakhs, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.Shri Rana, does not dispute that the Petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs towards penalty and in the light of the above judgment of our Division Bench, we are inclined to hold that as far as penalty is concerned, the same should be made 50%, i.e. to say Rs. 1 lakh. Under these circumstances, the Respondents are liable to refund the additional sum of Rs. 1 lakhs, which has been lying with them, since the year 1991. Almost 14 years ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
