9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - under section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 but redeemable on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The penalty of Rs. 80,000/- imposed by original authority under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 is also upheld in the impugned order. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for failure to re-export containers within six months as prescribed in notification no.104/94 dated 16th March 1994 as condition of landing in India without payment of customs duty. The original authority had taken recourse to section 28 of Customs Act 1962 for confirmation of the demand of duty but has not elaborated on the manner in which this particular provision could be invoked. It is also observed from the proceedings before the original authority that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act 1962 at the appellate stage. Nothing could be farther from the facts. The cited decision enlarges the scope of section 125 Customs Act 1962 to enable it to be invoked where the fulfilment of conditions annexed to duty-free import are not circumscribed by any time frame and thus hinders recovery under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 by sheer efflux of time. To prevent beneficiaries of conditional exemptions from thus neglecting to fulfil conditions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 125 of Customs Act 1962 operates independently as a recovery provision linked to redemption of confiscated goods. This would predicate upon goods being available for confiscation and upon the exercise of option to redeem the confiscated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant at the time of landing of the containers within the territory of India is a mechanism devised to facilitate the containerisation of global trade utilised. Such a facility was to be accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure that the containers are not illicitly diverted for use domestically without payment of duty. It is with that end in view that the extension of the period of retention of the container within the territory of India is also envisaged in the very same notification. It is an acknowledged fact that the containers remained with the custodian/government and hence the scope for illicit usage of non-duty paid containers is non-existent. In these circumstances, there is no justification for invoking of the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
