Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1190 - CESTAT MUMBAIConfiscation - Diamonds - whether, in the facts of the case, the diamonds in question are liable to be confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT:- Section 113(d) specifically provides that the export goods are liable for confiscation, if they are exported or attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force. The fine of ₹ 20 lakhs on the appellants were imposed for the reason that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113(d). If the Appellant has done any act towards the exportation, namely, taking of the goods out of India and if the act or acts could be fitted in the course of such movement of the goods, or, in other words, the act could fall in the course of progress towards the actual physical taking of the goods out of India, the mischief of section 113(d) would be attracted. Admittedly the goods were booked for export by Perez Hender Valmore. It is not the case of DRI that the said Perez Hender Valmore has any link or relation or concern with the Appellant. There must be an act or acts, by the Appellant, done towards the actual physical movement of the goods with intention to take them out of India. According to DRI also, the said Shri Perez Hender Valmore and not the appellant, attempted to export 1641 pieces of cut and polished diamonds illegally by concealing the same in the courier packet by mis-declaring the contents and concealing the aforesaid diamonds in grey & black coloured sports jacket of Nike brand and the said Perez Hander Valmore has no link with the Appellant. Section 113(d) ibid has no application on the facts of the present case. Therefore the goods/diamonds in question cannot be confiscated and are liable to be released unconditionally to the owner i.e. the Appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|