2005 (11) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave failed to fulfill the export obligation they were not entitled for the benefit of the exemption notifications. Hence the imported goods are liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act 1962. The order of the Commissioner as regards the liability to confiscation and demand of duty is legal and proper. We do not have any reason to interfere with the same. However, as regards the penalty, we do not find any mala fide. In view of the vicissitudes of business environment, the appellants were unable to fulfill export obligation. Hence imposition of penalty is not justifiable. As far as the redemption fine is concerned, we feel that in the interest of justice, it could be reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only). The appeal i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cating authority stated that the plant and machinery erected at their factory had become defunct and they started incurring heavy losses on the project. After examining the issue, the adjudicating authority has found that the appellants should have exported goods of value US $ 0.5 million or five times the CIF value of the capital goods imported, whichever is higher. These stipulations are given in the order of the Development Commissioner dated 11-6-2002. Since the appellants failed to comply with the post-importation conditions of the relevant notification, the adjudicating authority held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act 1962. Further, he held that the appellants are liable for penalty und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... incurred heavy losses. (vi) The appellants relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J159), wherein it has been held that no penalty should be imposed, where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. (vii) In the absence of mens rea imposition of penalty under Section 112 is not justifiable in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Akbar Badrudin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 3. The learned SDR brought out to our attention the recent decision of the larger bench in the case of M/s. Bombay Hospital Trust v. Commissioner of Customs, Sahar, Mumbai, 2005 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X