TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04-SM, C/4/2004-SM - Final Order No. 21996-21998/2017 - Dated:- 5-7-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Jophy Pothen, Advocate Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocates - For the Appellant Smt Kavitha Poduval, AR ORDER The present three appeals filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 30.07.2004 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered for the confiscation of 180 bars of tin metal ingots totally weighing 6125.30 kg valued at ₹ 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) in terms of Section 111(f)(i)(j) and (l) of the Customs Act, confiscation of Brass Scrap Honey weighing 14821.70 kg imported under Bill of Entry No. 108644 dated 16.03.2001 in terms of Section 111(m) of the Aet and imposition of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearance with foreign marking were found concealed in the brass scrap consignment. 180 such metal ingots tally weighting 6125.30 kg were found concealed in the consignment. These ingots were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the same had been illicitly imported into India. Samples of these ingots were drawn and sent to the Chemical Examiner, Custom House, Cochin, the Regional Research Laboratory, Thlruvananthapuram and the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad for testing/detailed analysis. All the three laboratories reported that the metal was Tin with purity above 90%. On this basis, further investigations were made into the subject import, wherein statements of some directors of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Regulation 21 of CHALR. As an interim measure the appellant's license has also been suspended and the appellant had challenged the said Order-in-Original before the CESTAT in Appeal No. C/ 134/2001 and the CESTAT through its order dated 28.11.2001 had set aside the suspension. Subsequent to that no action was taken against the appellant which clearly establishes that the appellant is innocent. He further submitted that no fresh evidence implicating the appellant has been produced by the Department. Further the counsel appearing for the two employees of the CHA also submitted that the employees of the CHA have been imposed penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each without any basis. He further submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
