Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2009 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 512 - HC - CustomsConfiscation and penalty- The respondents who were holders of a passbook under the DEEC Scheme, had imported as many as 16 consignments. The Assessing Officer then arrived at the conclusion that the import of 16 consignments was not only in contravention of law but also as a result of conspiracy. The impugned three consignments had also been sold before they were imported into the country in violation of para 281 of the Import Export Policy 1988-91. Therefore the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. while the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and penalty. Held that- the respondents had not cleared the goods. The Bill of Entry was filed by some other person. Therefore, the question of breach of condition by the respondents would not arise. What Section 111(o) of the Act reiterates is “the condition is not observed”. The stage for observing the condition had not yet arisen as the goods themselves had not been cleared by the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). The learned counsel is unable to point out any other provision under which the goods could be confiscated or penalty imposed insofar as the respondent no. 1 is concerned. Considering the above, in our opinion, the questions as framed in respect of the reference sought by the Revenue would not arise. Consequently, the application is rejected.
|