2014 (12) TMI 1119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that there were only two pieces of antique valued Rs. 883/- in the consignment meant for export along with other 673 items of furnitures. Such antiques were found to be prohibited goods, for which those were confiscated. Furniture meant for export were subject to claim of drawback. But that was contended by the Department to be denied for contravention of Sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... antiques were prohibited goods and liable to confiscation. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that such a low value goods were not conceivable to be concealed for which conclusion of ld. adjudicating authority was wrong. Accordingly, he held that confiscation of 673 items of furniture was unwarranted. His finding is totally contradictory when he holds that under Section 103(f) of the Customs Act, 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... declaration of the goods in the shipping bills. But unfortunately, Revenue is not in appeal. Accordingly, redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed against the mis-declaration of drawback is confirmed. Penalties of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 1 lakh imposed do not appear to be disproportionate when gravity of the matter is looked into. Therefore, those two penalties are also confirmed. Appeal is dismissed ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X