9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Shri Manik Chand, learned Consultant, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture electronic watches and clocks, that they imported parts of watches and electro micro circuits in January, 1997 and September, 1997; that based on the export declaration filed by their supplier with the Hong Kong Customs Central Excise Department, the Customs Department in India has enhanced the assessable value of the goods imported by them. He mentioned that the Appellants are not challenging the demand of Customs duty as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order. In view of this we uphold the demand of Customs duty against the Appellants. 3.1 The learned Consultant submitted that as the imported goods had been cleared to them on pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 289 (Cal.) - The liability to confiscation cannot be equated with the availability for confiscation. (b) Mangala Textiles v. CCE, Rajkot - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 705 (T). The Tribunal has referred to the judgment in Weston Components Ltd. v. C.C. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that the redemption fine could be imposed even when the goods were no longer in the custody of the Department. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Section 111 of the Customs Act describes the goods brought from a place outside India which shall be liable to confiscation for various actions or omissions. Section 125 of the Customs Act provides that whenever confiscation of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed, would not take away the power of the Customs authorities to levy redemption fine." In the present matters neither the Appellants have made any application nor have they executed any bond. This Tribunal in the case of Ramkhazana Electronic has observed, while considering the ratio of the decision in Weston Components that "since the goods were released on a bond the position is as if the goods were available. The ratio of the above decision cannot be understood that in all cases the goods were permitted to be cleared initially and later proceedings were taken for under valuation or other irregularity, even then redemption fine could be imposed." The Tribunal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 112 provides for imposition of penalty on any person, who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111; that since the goods have not been confiscated in Appeal No. C/651/04-NB(A), penalty under Section 112 cannot be imposed; that the second Appellant has neither done anything or omitted to do anything deliberately with intent to evade payment of duty on the goods imported and as such no penalty can be imposed on him; that the charge of abatement was neither alleged in the show cause notice nor was held so by the Adjudicating Authority. He relied upon the decision in the case of Delco Precitone Jewellers (P) Ltd. v. C.C., 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1105 (T). We also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
