2012 (8) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent.   Per: Shri D. N. Panda:   Ld. Counsel submits that the goods reached from Pakistan to Amritsar by rail cargo should not have been dutiable in terms of Notification No. 48/2000-Cus. dated 25.4.2000. Because the goods could not reach through the places notified by para 4 of the notification, Revenue confiscated the goods and also imposed duty followed by penalty and redemption fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Para 4 of the Notification No.48/2000-Cus. dated 25.4.2000 alongwith proviso thereunder is calling for interpretation in this case. There is no dispute of arrival of the goods in India at Amritsar which was not the notified place for DFRC scheme. This is clear from para 4 of the notification. Proviso thereunder removes hardship. The said proviso requires that by special order and subject to such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... benefit of the notification is prevented. Any goods reaching through different channel not known to customs authorities or that reaches India through different channel not permitted by the notification that calls for imposition of duty. Both sides agreed that the goods are not prohibited goods since that is covered by DFRC scheme. On such analogy levy of penalty is uncalled for. Therefore, confirm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X