9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants viz. Shri G.P Jaiswal (CH No. 13/86), Shri Rakesh Srivastava, Sr. Supdt. of Central Excise and Shri Rakesh Mishra are directed against a common order-in-original No. 4/COMM/LKO/2002, dated 29-4-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow. In the said order, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each on Shri G.P. Jaiswal and Shri Rakesh Srivastava and Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of PVC soles with the inflated value declaration. It is alleged that, as against the market price of Rs. 8 to 15 per pair, the export value was stated at Rs. 380/- per pair. The order-in-original proceeds that each of the three appellants had conspired together to help the exporter in effecting the shipment containing the inflated value declaration. The export goods (PVC soles) have been held lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des confiscation in a case where "any goods attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force". Declaration of higher PMV is stated to be a contravention of provisions of Para 7.36A of the Public Notice No. 10/97(PN)-1997-2000, dated 21-5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds for imposing penalty under Section 114(i) do not arise. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) in the case of Commissioner of Customs (EP) Mumbai v. Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd., has held that the export goods (showing inflated value) cannot be confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Following the said judgment, we hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
