9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 113(i) of the Customs Act respectively and I order a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act of Rs. 2.50 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. (ii) I order denial of drawback of Rs. 47,506/- on ladies leather boots found short. (iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Mr. Inderjeet Singh proprietorof M/s. I.J. Exim under Section 114 of the Customs Act. (iv) I order denial of drawback of Rs. 1650/- on shoes found short in respect of M/s. Vakil Exports. 2.It should be recalled that Section 130, as it stood before its repeal by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, permitted an Appeal to the High Court. That Appeal was not of a general nature but was restricted to the adjudication or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this writ petition on merits. 4.Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner had attempted to export a consignment of 4600 pairs of ladies boots stated to be packed in 250 cartons. A Declaration to this effect had been made. On examination of the consignment by the Respondents it was discovered that boots were packed only in 199 cartons and there was a substantial shortfall in the total number of boots sought to be exported. In the remaining 31 cartons biris, gutka and zarda had been packed. There was no mention of biris, gutka and zarda in the Declaration. These events have resulted in the impugned Order being passed by the Commissioner of Customs. 5.It has been contended by Mr. Bagai, learned counsel for the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the attraction of Section 113(i). International Protocols now make it obligatory on Customs Department to inform each other of attempts to violate the law. There was no justification for exercise of extraordinary powers to strike down such action between Customs Department of India on the one hand and the foreign countries, such as Australia, on the other. 8.It has next been contended that the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner finds M/s. Karam Freight Movers guilty of mis-declaration but yet it has not imposed any penalty on it. In the penultimate paragraph of the Order-in-Original it has been stated 'From the facts and circumstances of the case, T do not find any evidence against Shri Vijay Singh Yadav employee of M/s. Kara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
