9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icit importation, the same were confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed. Their appeal to Central Board of Excise Customs ('Board' in short) was rejected. Hence this revision application. 2. An opportunity of personal hearing duly offered on 18-9-1993, was not availed of. As no complex question of law or facts is involved, the revision application is being decided on the basis of submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities. 5. In short, therefore, the position is that the goods were admittedly permitted for import only against actual users condition. There has thus been a violation of the conditions subject to which the goods were allowed import. Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, is very widely worded. It includes not only contravention of the conditions of the licence but also contravention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, are independent and distinct in their nature and both the authorities under the Customs Act, and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 are free to take action under their respective Acts according to law. It is held that in such cases the customs authorities are competent to confiscate the goods in question under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. [R.K, Industries v. Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act can be penalised (Sec. 112(b)]. The applicants' case squarely falls under the second category. Therefore, the penalty has also rightly been imposed on the applicants. However, keeping in mind that they were not directly concerned with the breach of cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
