TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that the said goods contravened the provision of section 7(1) (c) of Customs Act, 1962. The said provision is empowering the Board to appoint the Routes by which alone specified goods may passed by land or inland water into or out of India or to or from any land customs station from or to any land frontier. We take the note of facts that he said goods were not intercepted at any point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent for the Appellant : Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri Kamal Puggal (Asstt. Commissioner) (AR) ORDER The present M.A. is Miscellaneous Application No. C/Misc./70284/2016 in which a prayer is to direct the Commissioner of Customs (Prevention), Lucknow not to auction the confiscated Supari. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant had filed an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962. Said section has made distinction of two types of goods. One is prohibited goods and other one is other than prohibited goods. In case the goods are other than prohibited goods then the Adjudicating authority is under obligation to give option to redeem the goods at payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Definition of prohibited goods is at Section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962. The said def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the note of facts that he said goods were not intercepted at any point of entry into India. We hold prima facie opinion that the said goods are not prohibited. We, therefore, order that the applicant may be allowed to draw the sample from confiscated goods, get them tested by Food Drugs Administration of the state and if found fit for human consumption then provisional release of the said good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
