TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 382/17/SMB - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri D.K. Sinha for Appellant None for Respondent ORDER Per Raju This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner for failure to confiscate the goods and impose redemption fine despite holding the goods liable to confiscation. In a case involving misuse of Advance License Scheme, the impugned order upholds the demand of duty by denying the benefit of Notification. It also holds the goods imported liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods were not available for confiscation, the same were not confiscated and hence no redemption fine was imposed. Aggrieved by this order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 . The revenue relied on the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of M/s. Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 . Distinguishing Weston s judgment (supra), the Division Bench held that the goods were released on the application of the assessee before the Supreme Court and on execution of a bond. Therefore, when the import was not found to be valid or there was any other irregularity which would entitle the customs authorities to confiscate the goods. That merely because the bond was executed would not take away the power of the Customs authority to levy redemption fine. The goods not being available for custody does not mean that the redemption cannot be imposed was an argument of the assessee before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this specific violation which is alleged and the preceding conditions of the Notification No. 203/92, dated 19th May, 1992 not being attracted and no finding of any bond having been executed or a legal undertaking furnished having been rendered by the adjudicating authority that the Tribunal was of the opinion that redemption fine is not imposable. That was also because the goods have not been seized. This view of the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances and considering the language of sub-section (1) of Section 125 also does not suffer from such serious legal infirmity or perversity which would warrant our interference in further appellate jurisdiction. Once the export obligation is discharged, then, it is the later part of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
