2004 (9) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Tin Free Sheets Misprints valued at Rs. 2,76,384/- under Section 119 of Customs Act, 1962. I order confiscation of 215.799 MTs of Defective Steel Sheets/Coils used to conceal the 70.461 MTs of Defective Steel Sheets/Coils under Section 119 of Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I also order confiscation of the excess quantity of 70.461 MTs (forming part of 286.260 MTs) of Defective Steel Sheets/Coils valued at Rs. 5,39,151/- under Section 111(1) of Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I also offer the importer to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I also order M/s. Rukma Industries Ltd., to pay duty amounts of Rs. 21,36,475/- on the import of 150.52 MTs of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... heets Misprints, 26.410 MTs of Tin Free Sheets Misprints, 286.26 MTs of Defective Steel Sheets/Coils were seized from the said premises, on the basis of a belief that the goods had been smuggled by the appellants or used by them for concealing the smuggled goods. The show cause notice proposed to confiscate these goods under Section 111 or Section 119, as the case may be, of the Customs Act, 1962. It also proposed to demand duty on the goods allegedly smuggled. Penalties were also proposed on the company and its Director under Section 114A and Section 112(a), respectively, of the Act. Contesting these proposals, the appellants, inter alia, took a contention that, as none of the seized goods had been notified under Section 123 of the Customs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In this connection, ld. Counsel has relied on the following decisions :- (i) Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad v. J.T. Parekh and Co. [2004 (167) E.L.T. 77 (Tri. - Mumabi)]. (ii) Manikchand Prasad v. Commissioner of Customs, Patna [2003 (161) E.L.T. 848 (Tri. - Kolkata)]. (iii) Dinanath Maurya v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow [2001 (131) E.L.T. 203 (Tri. - Kolkata)]. (iv) Ashok Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata [2003 (159) E.L.T. 683 (Tri. - Kolkata)]. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. After examining the records and considering the submissions, we find that the main allegation in the show cause notice was that the goods had been illicitly imported by M/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X