TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty in respect of the goods imported by it under the DFIA Scheme on the ground that Areca Nut would stand covered under Item No. 12(c)(i) of the group G-7 of the SION - prima facie, the provisions of Section 111 of the Act would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is any material on the basis of which the proper officer could form the requisite belief that the subject goods are liable to seizure under Section 110 of the Act - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction to deposit 50% in cash and balance by way of bank guarantee - 3031 of 2011, - - - Dated:- 29-3-2011 - Harsha Devani and Bela Trivedi, JJ. S/Shri Mihir Joshi, Sr. Advocate and Amar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escription and the value of the goods have been correctly stated by the petitioner and that, there is no misrepresentation made in the Bill of Entry. It was urged that all that the petitioner has done is that it has claimed the benefit of exemption under the DFIA licences on the ground that Areca Nut which are the goods imported by the petitioner, are covered by item No. 12(c)(i) of G-7 of the Standard Input Output Norms (SION) prescribed by the Director General of Foreign Trade. It was submitted that merely making a claim cannot be said to be a misdeclaration so as to fall within the ambit of clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act. As regards the applicability of clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act, it was submitted that the said provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. It was submitted that once the proper officer has been satisfied that the conditions precedent for invoking Section 110 of the Act are satisfied, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere with the same. Reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another, 1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.) for the proposition that if prima facie there are grounds to justify the belief of the proper officer that the seized goods were liable to confiscation, the courts have to accept the officers belief whether the court of its own might or might not have entertain the same belief. Courts should not sit in appeal in regard to this question. 5. Inviting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondent No. 3 in exercise of powers under Section 110 of the Act, as according to him the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Act. Section 111 of the Act lays down the categories of goods which are liable to confiscation. Clause (m) thereof is attracted if any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof or in the case of goods under transshipment, with the declaration for transshipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 54. 7. In the present case, a perusal of the Bill of Entry annexed along with the affidavit-in-reply in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of a claim made on the basis of the belief entertained by the assessee it cannot be said to be a misdeclaration as contemplated by Section 111(m) of the Act. 9. In the facts of the present case, in the opinion of the Court, prima facie, all that the petitioner has done is that it has made a claim that it is entitled to exemption of duty in respect of the goods imported by it under the DFIA Scheme on the ground that Areca Nut would stand covered under Item No. 12(c)(i) of the group G-7 of the Standard Inputs and Output Norms (SION). Insofar as other particulars are concerned, there does not appear to be any dispute as regards their correctness. In the circumstances, prima facie, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial on the basis of which the proper officer could form the requisite belief that the subject goods are liable to seizure under Section 110 of the Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another, (supra) does not carry the case of the respondents any further inasmuch as the said decision would be applicable in case where prima facie there are grounds to justify the belief of the proper officer that the seized goods were liable to confiscation, in which case the court has to accept the officers belief and not in a case like the present one where there are no grounds to justify the belief of the proper officer that the seized goods are liable to confiscation. 11. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
