TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport the containers within six months. The Appellant, admittedly, failed to re-export the containers within the stipulated time period and also failed to exercise the liberty to file for extension of time, granted to him under the said notification. The exemption notifications require strict interpretation and therefore, the Appellant is in gross violation of the conditions of the exemption notification. On perusal of the Survey Report, it is found that the containers have been declared unfit for export and the depreciated value has been calculated at ₹ 11.70 lakhs. The first adjudicating authority had valued the containers at ₹ 28,24,034/- (36 containers) and ₹ 30,79,820/- (39 containers) and accordingly, duties of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted within a period of six months from the date of import. In the event, the steamer agent is constrained and is unable to export the containers within six months, such steamer agent may apply for extension of time showing sufficient and genuine cause. 2. The Appellant had executed a Bond of ₹ 14,40,000/- in terms of the said Notification and in respect of 36 containers imported under IGM No. 22001 dated 14th September 2006 and a Bond of ₹ 15,60,000/- in respect of 39 containers imported under IGM No. 22423 dated 06th November 2006. Therefore, the said 36 containers were to be exported by 13th March 2007 and the said 39 containers were to be exported by 05th May 2007, as per the conditions of the notification. The Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed with the option of redemption at ₹ 2,00,000/- under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. Penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In respect of the 39 containers, the Adjudicating Authority considered the depreciated value of the containers as ₹ 30,79,820/- and accordingly, demanded a duty of ₹ 10,36,390/- along with interest. The confiscation of the said containers was also confirmed with the option of redemption at ₹ 2,20,000/- under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. Penalty of ₹ 1,60,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 5. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, vide order dated 02nd August 2017, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anuary 2008 against the said redemption fine. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 16,99,920/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act along with interest. An amount of ₹ 10,36,390/- paid by the Appellant was appropriated towards the said demand. Penalty of ₹ 2,60,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act and an amount of ₹ 1,60,000/- paid by the Appellant was appropriated towards the said penalty. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present appeals before this Tribunal. 9. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 10. I find that it is undisputed that the Appellant had imported 75 containers and had availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to re-export the containers within a period of six months or within the extended time of extension as may be granted by proper officer. It is a matter of record that the Appellant failed to seek extension of time for re-export of the said containers. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned orders have arrived at the value of the containers without any application of mind. I, therefore, pass the following order: i) I uphold the valuation of the 36 containers at ₹ 28,24,034/-, as arrived at by the First Adjudicating Authority and accordingly, uphold the demand of duty of ₹ 9,50,316/- along with interest. The Appellant has already paid the duty amount of ₹ 9,50,316/- vide challan No. 244 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
