9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 4-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Under the impugned order the Commissioner confiscated six consignments of marble blocks imported by the appellant and gave them an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. He also imposed "a nominal penalty" of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant. The confiscation of the goods was made under Section 111 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mate calculation". This Certificate also provides description of the goods on Cubic Meter (CBM) basis, that is at the rate of 520 USD/CBM, 385 USD/CBM, 200 USD/CBM etc. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the findings in the impugned order are the result of applying an irrelevant criterion of weight to the goods. While the criterion for transaction was volume basis. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there of would however have to be taken into account for purpose of calculating the duty. In view of our findings, the orders of penalty on the importers also would not sustain. We summarise our order as under :- The order of confiscation of marble blocks weighing 23.735 MTs. and of 56.05 Sq. Mts. of marble slabs under Sec. 111(M) of the Act is set aside. However, since the slabs were not cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same was condoned. 4. Further, the appellant is an EOU who is under obligation to re-export the imported goods. Therefore, the whole dispute about weight is irrelevant for customs purposes. That the proceedings are not serious is also clear from the fact that the Commissioner has chosen to impose "a nominal penalty". 5. We accept the appellant's contention that the proceedings were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
