9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order holds that the goods are confiscated but are allowed re-export on payment of a consolidated redemption fine of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only). A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the "importers" has also been imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The order is addressed to M/s. Kemtrode Private Ltd. and M/s. Nucor Weld Pvt. Ltd. (One group of companies). 2. In the four stay petitions under consideration, applicants have prayed waiver of pre-deposit of these amounts. 3. Heard learned Advocate, Shri Rajesh Chandar Kumar for applicants and learned JDR Shri S. Kannan. Learned Advocate reiterated the facts of the case and submitted that the said order has dealt with four Bill of Entrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Collector of Customs ICD, Bangalore. (ii) The order-in-original relies on Department's test reports. However, Learned Advocate submits that copies of the said test reports have not been made available to them and therefore this matter has been decided behind their back. The existence of such test report was not even informed to them during the personal hearing also. (iii) With regard to Para 11 of the order-in-original learned Advocate submits that it is factually not correct that Customs were only informed about the inferior quality of the goods by their letter dated 18-3-1998 in view of the facts submitted in sub-para (i) above. (iv) He further submits that the order notes that no payment has been made by the importers for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal aspect of splitting the penalties and redemption fine in terms of the four bill of entries. 8. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and the records of the case. We find that since the matter lies on a short compass, the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty is granted and stay ordered and we thereafter take up the main appeals themselves. 9. We find that the order-in-original impugned suffers from the following infirmities :- (i) Though the importers are two different Private Limited Companies and the goods have been imported under four different bill of entries, three of which have since been warehoused while the fourth is not even yet warehoused, therefore imposition of a consolidated redemption fine for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed only on the ground that ignorance of correct procedure cannot be accepted at this stage. We find that imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- merely on the grounds that there was ignorance of procedure on the part of the importer itself is not equitable. There should have been a clear order on which laws were infringed by the importer leading to imposition of penalty. This is not so. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings, we set aside the order-in-original and remand the matter for de novo consideration afresh to the learned Commissioner of Customs. We also direct that while considering the matter de novo he should furnish the copies of the test reports relied upon and also give an oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
