9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 2582, Line No. 99 vide B/E No. 1067 and 1084 both dated 3/8/99 valued collectively at Rs. 37,59,325.82 CIF liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The said goods were released provisionally on revenue deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- and execution of a bond, I appropriate Rs. 20,00,000/- of the said deposit in terms of the conditions of the Bond towards redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. (b) I imposed penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- on M/s. Imran Trading Establishment under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the said amount is appropriated fro the remaining of the deposit as above. (c) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in lieu of confiscation and penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed on partnership firm i.e. M/s. Imran Trading Establishment under Section 112(a) and also penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on partner, appellant under Section 112 (b) therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Shri. D.H. Nadkarni, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as regards the correct classification there were lot of confusion and doubts and there was no clarity. He submits that reference made to DGFT since there was no clarity. The issue was referred to DGFT and DGFT had issued a Circular No. 32(RE-99)/1999-2000 DT 17/9/1999, wherein it was clarified that 'Dried garlic' classified under Exim code No. 071290.04 of ITC (HS) classification, 1997-02 be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is why the matter was referred for the clarification of DGFT and DGFT has clarified what is the dried garlic and garlic other than dried garlic. The identical issue came up before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DAB Exports (supra), wherein the Larger Bench referring the Apex Court judgment in case[2007 (208) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] Suchitra Components Ltd has held that very circular dated 17/9/1999 is prospective and not retrospective therefore whatever goods imported prior to issuance of this Circular was held to be legal. Therefore in the present case also the import was made prior to issuance of circular i.e. on 3/8/1999. In the present case imposition of penalty on the partner and in the case of partnership firm, wherein c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
