9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 124 of the Customs Act for demanding the above duty from the assessee under Section 72(1) of the Act, confiscating the goods under Section 111(d) and (o) of the Act, proposing to destroy the goods under 'preventive supervision,' and for imposing penalty on the assessee under Section 112 of the Act, (b) that the party approached the Settlement Commission which directed that the goods be destroyed, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days, (c) that the perishable goods in the assessee's licensed warehouse were accordingly destroyed under department's supervision, (d) that subsequently the show-cause notice was adjudicated upon by the Joint Commissioner of Customs who confirmed duty liability against the assessee to the extent of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, if the Assistant Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that any imported goods have been destroyed at any time before clearance for home consumption, he shall remit the duty on such goods. Admittedly, the goods were destroyed on 31-12-2000 but the warehouse licence had been revoked much before that, i.e. on 15-11-99. In other words, the goods remained warehoused for purposes of the Customs Act only up to 15-11-99. Section 72 authorises the proper officer to demand duty from the owner of warehoused goods, where such goods are removed from the warehouse in contravention of Section 71, or where such goods have not been removed at the expiration of the warehousing period, or where such goods were taken under Section 64 as samples without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unless it is shown that the goods were allowed to be cleared under bond/bank guarantee. Therefore, the plea of the Revenue for imposing redemption fine on the assessee cannot be accepted, on the facts of this case. The surviving question pertains to penalty. The question is whether the assessee, by their commission or omission, rendered goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The show cause notice proposed confiscation under clause (d) and clause (o) of Section 111. The same notice proposed to destroy the goods. These proposals are mutually inconsistent. Apart from this, in this case, there is no finding as to how the assessee rendered the goods liable to confiscation under the aforesaid provision. If that be the case, Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
