TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. These appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs in Delhi, by which he has imposed penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 of Rs. 2,00,000/- on M/s. Badri Prasad Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. Om Tour Travel Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts leading to the Collector s orders are briefly this. M/s. Badri Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Collector has passed the order in question. 3. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana for M/s. Badri Prasad Sons Pvt. Ltd., Shri N. Ramanathan, Consultant for M/s. Om Tour Travel Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, SDR. 4. We do not consider it necessary to go into the question as to whether the consignment actually weighed 6841 kgs. as claimed by the exporter or 2770 kgs. as confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under Sec. 77". Sub-section (i) of Section 113 renders liable for confiscation : Any dutiable or prohibited goods [or goods ensured for exportation under claim for drawback] which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich export of fabric was prohibited. When asked to counter Shri Asthana s argument in this regard, the DR could not explain under what law the export of goods was prohibited. He merely reiterated the Collector s view. Since it has not been shown that the goods were prohibited for export and there has never been a claim that they were dutiable or that the exporter claimed drawback on them, the conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
