TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e No.16/2013, referred to earlier and if the importers are allowed to rectify the shortcomings in the information, required as per said notification No.24.11.2000, before the goods are cleared from Customs Control, there would not be any violation requiring the goods to be confiscated and redeemed - I direct Principal Commissioner of Customs Noida, Customs Commissionerate to allow the importer to fulfill the requirement for compliance of Notification No.44 (RE-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24.11.2000, by pasting stickers on the goods imported when the goods are still under the control of Customs before their clearance and after satisfying that the said requirements have been fulfilled, allow the clearance of goods on payment of appropriate duty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.11.2000. Therefore, the appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 24.08.2016. There was a proposal for confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and proposal for imposing of penalty on the importer under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. The importers/appellants have submitted before the Original Authority that the provisions of said Notification dated 24.11.2000, were required to be fulfilled when the goods are imported for the purpose of retail sale. However, the goods imported by them were for industrial consumers and such goods which are intended for consumption by industrial consumers, there was no requirement to satisfy the requirements of such notification dated 24.11.2000. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions in terms of said notification before the clearance of the goods. It has further held that confiscation also was not warranted. Therefore, the question of redemption fine does not arise. 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that the reasons stated by the Original Authority for not complying the decision of this Tribunal in the said case is given at para 10.4 of the said reason is not sustainable. Therefore, he has requested to allow the appeal. 4. Heard the Ld. DR, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and having perused the appeal paper book, I find that there were certain requirements specified by the notification dated 24.11.2000, not com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
