TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscation not justified - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - C/298/07 - A/85031/17/SMB - Dated:- 29-12-2016 - Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commissioner (AR) for Appellant None for Respondent ORDER Per Raju Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner, wherein while the duty demand was confirmed and the goods imported are to be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 but were not confiscated as the same were not available. 2. Learned AR has argued that the respondents had imported goods vide various Bills of Entry during April, 2000 to October, 2000 investigations were conducted and a show-cause notice was issued in March, 2005 seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gods were unconditionally cleared and are not available for confiscation. Tribunal in the case of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. 2014 (313) ELT 353 (Tri-Bang) has observed as follows: - 15.1 When the offending goods can be confiscated and when fine can be imposed have been considered by this Bench in detail in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Others and it has been held as under : 19.4 Section 110 of the Customs Act deals with seizure of offending goods both on the import and export side; Section 111 of the Customs Act deals with confiscation of the offending goods on the import side after issue of show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. Section 125 of the Customs Act provides for grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank guarantee, etc. In respect of goods which were seized and provisionally released in the said manner to the owner before adjudication, the owner of the goods is liable to return the goods at the time of adjudication in terms of his undertaking and, in the event of failure to produce the same, fine in lieu of confiscation can be imposed as settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.)]. (d) The offending goods may be outside the jurisdiction of Indian Customs authorities as in the case of goods which have been illegally exported. In such a situation, the authorities may not be able to pass an order of confiscation as the same is not pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey and Others v. M.P. Mondkar and Others reported in [1988 (37) E.L.T. 528 (Bom.)] relied upon by the department make it clear (a) that confiscation under Section 111 applies to any goods in respect of which offences have been established and not necessarily to all goods which have been seized; (b) that there is no restriction under Section 124 to issue show cause notice proposing confiscation of only the seized goods; and (c) that the provisions of Sections 110 and 124 are independent, distinct and exclusive of each other. 15.2 Coming to the facts of the present case, the Commissioner has given clear finding that the imported goods, though are liable to confiscation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
