9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest of Rs. 61,13,890/-. 2. Heard Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner imported two consignments of Coke Breeze, under two Bills of Entry dated 21.12.2013 and 30.01.2014 respectively. The goods landed up at Gangavaram Port. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of basic customs duty, in terms of the notification No.12/2012, dated 17.03.2012. As per the said notification, Metallurgical Coke was exempted from payment of basic customs duty. 4. Accepting the claim for exemption, the petitioner was allowed to clear about 69848.48 metric tons, out of the total imported quantity of about 84365 metric tons. But, before the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght only) against the two Bills of Entry Nos.4147311 dt.21.12.2013 and 4500504 dt.30.01.2014 under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 and order recovery of the same along with the applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. I hold that the goods totally valued Rs. 77,81,03,468.86 which were earlier cleared are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not physically available for confiscation, the question of imposing redemption fine does not arise and hence I refrain from imposing any redemption fine. I confiscate the imported Chinese Coke Breeze and detained under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 valued at Rs. 15,85,89,590.13 under Section 111( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yable for the goods, of which release is now sought. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 125(2) of the Act, where any fine in lieu of confiscation is imposed under Sub-Section (1), the owner of such goods will be liable to pay the duty and charges payable in respect of such goods, in addition to fine. The expression such goods would naturally correlate only to the goods that are detained at the Port and cannot relate to the goods, which had already been released. 11. To buttress the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section 28, which provides for recovery of duties not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded. Since the proceedings in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construed as referring to all the goods that were liable for confiscation, but which escaped confiscation for whatever reasons. Otherwise, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CESTAT as against the order in original, will itself turn out to be an exercise confined only to the goods now detained. 14. As a matter of fact, the entire order in original is on appeal before the CESTAT. What the petitioner is now seeking in this writ petition is to order the release of the goods, by accepting a portion of the order, without prejudice to their rights in the appeal. If the petitioner had raised such a plea before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may probably take a holistic view of the entire matter. For the purpose of seeking an interim relief, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
