9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alued at Rs. 2,00,000/- and 3,50,000/- respectively. Thus the aggregate value being Rs. 25,60,594/-, on account of violation of the provisions of Sections 7,11, and 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) read with Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act, 1992 as the goods and vehicles appeared to be liable for confiscation under Section 113(b) and 115(2) respectively and the persons involved were found liable for penal action under Section 114 of the Act. 2(a). The SSB personnel of BOP, Bhithamore, Sitamarhi, intercepted two pick-up vans as detailed above, laden with misc. cloth items at 0050 hrs on 31.05.2016 near Indo-Nepal border pillar no. 299. On enquiry, the occupants of the vehicles failed to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms who effected the seizure. He submitted copies of Bills bearing nos. 755, 756 and 757, all dated 13.05.2016, issued by M/s KKR Agency (a cloth commission agent) of Ahmedabad, valued at Rs. 8,15,245/-. He explained the difference between Bill value and seizure value as exaggeration in seizure value by the SSB. 2(d). The seizure goods were ordered to be released by the Jt. Commissioner, Customs (Hqrs), Patna to the noticee no. 04 on security deposit of Rs. 3,01,590/- and furnishing of Bond for the full value of the seized goods. Similarly, both the vehicles were released provisionally to the rightful owners on similar grounds. 2(e). During the course of investigation, the Bill of Exports claimed to have been filed by the noticee no. 04, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eview No. 10-Review/Pat/2017 dated 23.08.2017 and on the basis of that, Department filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the Order-in-Original on the basis of order in Review and ordered as follows:- "9. The appeal is allowed with the following orders: (a) The confiscation of the seized goods, misc. cloth items, valued at Rs. 20,10,594/-, is confirmed under Section 113(b) of the Act. However, the noticee no. 04, Sri Sanjay Sah, the owner of the goods, is given the option, under Section 125 of the Act, to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 3,01,590/- and since this amount has already been paid at the time of provisional release of the goods, the same is ordered to be appropriated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts herein have filed the present appeals. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. It appears that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not justified his order with reasoning and simply agreed with the order in Review. 9. I agree with the observation of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in as much as the seizure list and panchnama were prepared very casually. Time of seizure given in the seizure memo does not tally with the panchnama. Place of seizure in also vague. It also appears that the panchas were not independent. 10. Shri Sanjay Sah has claimed that he has exported goods valued at less than Rs. 25,000/- and also exported goods valued more than Rs. 25,000/ in partnership with M/s Vaidehi Traders, Bithamore. Shri Sanjay Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
