9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 2. The respondents imported a consignment of rough diamonds, filed a Bill of Entry for its clearance. Rough diamonds are exempt from payment of duty under Notification 36/96-Cus. The goods were in the negative list of imports of 1992-97 policy. The importer had a valid licence to import the goods though. 3. The declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered it a case of wrong declaration, held the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, confiscated them but allowed them to be re-deemed for re-export on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. No penalty is imposed on any one. 4. The Commissioner observed that the diamonds found short were not available for confiscation. In the first instance, if they are available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong in not imposing the penalty on the importer and secondly should not have held the shipper responsible of misdeclaration. The Revenue was almost pleading the case of the shipper. It says, we quote "Section 1(2) of the Customs Act defines extent in respect of the applicability of the Customs Act, 1962 which mentions that 'it extends to the whole of India'." Scope and extent of the Act is confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. In regard to the plea that the shipper is a foreigner and so the provisions of the Customs Act do not extend beyond the territorial waters etc., we hold that the shipper was represented before the Commissioner in India and was the one who requested for reshipment. The Customs Act applies to all foreigners who happen to visit India and can be proceeded against if they render the goods liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Safety lies in accusing the shipper, which is what was done! The Revenue's plea that penalty should have been imposed on the importer for no fault of his, is also rejected. 9. In fact the diamonds should have been allowed to be reshipped without accusing the shipper of misdeclaration. The shipper seemed to have paid Rs. 1,50,000/- redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner. What is such a small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
