TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty. 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. The respondents who were holders of a passbook under the DEEC Scheme, had imported as many as 16 consignments. After coming to know of the investigations that were going on, they disclaimed the goods. There is a further finding of fact by the Assessing Officer as under: "Having failed in their attempt to clear the goods free of duty, presumably on account of M/s. Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd. backing out of the deal in view of ongoing investigations, Naresh Modi S. Biren Shah sought to clear the goods themselves." The Assessing Officer then arrived at the conclusion that the import of 16 consignments was not only in contravention of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premature to invoke clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act. In the light of that, the learned Tribunal held that there was no ground for confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty and set aside the order of confiscation of goods and penalty imposed. 4. It is against that order that the Revenue has applied for a reference on the questions formulated above. 5. At the hearing of this application, on behalf of the applicant, the learned counsel has submitted that from the order of the Assessing Officer it would be clear that the respondents had in fact sold the goods to a third person. The goods were imported under the DET licence and could have only been used for captive consumption. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ignored all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, cannot be said that the said goods were liable to be confiscated on the date of their import under Clause (o). Further, merely because the second respondent had not complied with the condition imposed with respect to three earlier consignments, it may not be possible to presume that it would not be observed even with respect to the four consignments in question. Be that as it may, it is sufficient for the present to notice that so far no action has been taken on that account either under the Customs Act or under Section 4-G of the Imports-Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Section 4-G of 1947 Act is also conceived to meet such situation, as a reading thereof would disclose. It says that non-compliance with any condition of licence rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
