TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e competent authority for export of the small variety onions and did not fulfil certain requirements stipulated in respect of the Bangalore Rose Onions in Notification No. 21 (RE-2000) 1997-2002 issued by the DGFT, the original authority confiscated the entire consignment under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, but with option for redemption of the goods against payment of a fine of Rs. 83,000/-. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the party under Section 114 of the Act. The first appellate authority set aside the order of the lower authority, by relying on the Tribunal s decision in Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2000 (121) E.L.T. 819 (Tri.) affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Praya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regulated export of onions by order under Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992, the subject goods cannot be dubbed as prohibited and, for that matter, the apex court s judgments cited by ld. SDR cannot be applied to this case. Without prejudice to this argument, ld. counsel submits that the respondents were permitted to withdraw the goods from export and, in such circumstance, the authorities should be lenient in the matter of determining the quanta of redemption fine and penalty. 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that the question whether restriction on export of goods would amount to prohibition is no longer res integra inasmuch as it was ruled by the Hon ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; The expression contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force is common to both the provisions. This was the expression interpreted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheik Mohd. Omer (supra). Their lordships held that the expression any prohibition contained in Section 111(d) encompassed all types of prohibition and that restriction was one type of prohibition. This ruling of the apex court would squarely be applicable to the expression any prohibition used in Section 113(d) also. In the case of Om Prakash Bhatia (supra), the Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992. Any Notification issued under a statutory provision will have such legal force as the statutory provision itself has. Non-fulfilment of the conditions laid down under the Notification amounted to breach of the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992, which is comprised in the expression any other law used in Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Thus obviously, the Bangalore Rose Onions in question were prohibited for export. Both the varieties of onions were prohibited for export. Consequently, the entire consignment was liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, as rightly held by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. In the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
