Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 733 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of imported goods - imposition of redemption fine - penalty under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 - jurisdiction prescribed in Section 128 A of Customs Act - allegation is that there is no opportunity to defend itself before the adjudicating authority owing to the circumstances which were beyond its control, and that the respondent did not receive any Show Cause Notice or even the notice of personal hearing - HELD THAT:- Section 110 (2) ibid mandates issuance of show cause notice under Section 124 (a) within a period of six months and if not issued within six months, then it prescribes that the seized goods should be returned back to the person from whom the goods were seized - the first appellate authority has only partially remanded while sustaining the duty liability and the interest thereon and hence, if the prayer of the Commissioner in the appeal is to be sustained whereby the Commissioner has prayed interalia for upholding the appellate authority’s order, for the reason that the order of the first appellate authority did not appear to be proper and just and that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) merits rejection, then the entire order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be set aside. With regard to the order of confiscation, what was imported under advance authorization was only raw materials which were subsequently converted into final products and hence, the order of confiscation could only to be restricted to the raw materials alone, which perhaps is the reason for the first appellate authority to have remanded the matter with the direction to re-examine partially, which according to me appears to be correct. There are no reasons to interfere with the partial remand order of the first appellate authority, for which reason, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
|