TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cargo on the vessel ahead of grant of let export order (LEO) is attributable to the person-in-charge of the conveyance and not the exporter. Nonetheless, the goods, having been loaded in contravention of the prescription in section 40 of Customs Act, 1962, was liable to confiscation under section 113 (g) of Customs Act, 1962. That finding in the impugned order is without fault - the goods were not available for confiscation by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, as held by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS FINESSE CREATION INC. [ 2009 (8) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , the imposition of redemption fine is without authority of law. The regularisation of the process for export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant herein, along with their custom house agent and the agent of the shipping line, by show cause notice dated 14th December 2009, it was alleged that M/s UM Cables Ltd had disregarded the requirements mandated in section 50 of Customs Act, 1962 by failing to produce the shipping bill before the proper officer leading to consequent breach of section 35 and section 40 of Customs Act, 1962 by the others and, therefore, liable to the consequences devolving on offending goods and persons concerned with rendering the goods liable to confiscation. 2. Though the shipping line concerned did attempt to justify the departure of the vessel with offending export containers by pleading that the date of sailing, 18th April 2008, was a pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification, to order confiscation of the goods with a discretion in the authorities on passing the order of confiscation, to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. Such an order can only be passed if the goods are available, for redemption. The question of confiscating the goods would not arise if there are no goods available for confiscation nor consequently redemption. Once goods cannot be redeemed no fine can be imposed. The fine is in the nature of computation to the state for the wrong done by the importer/exporter. 6. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the tribunal was right in holding that in the absence of the goods being available no fine in lieu of confiscation could have been imposed. The goods in fact had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exporter. Nonetheless, the goods, having been loaded in contravention of the prescription in section 40 of Customs Act, 1962, was liable to confiscation under section 113 (g) of Customs Act, 1962. That finding in the impugned order is without fault. However, the goods were not available for confiscation by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, as held by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in re Finesse Creations Inc, the imposition of redemption fine is without authority of law. 7. The regularisation of the process for export is on record. Moreover, the vessel had been allowed to depart in accordance with section 42 of Customs Act, 1962 after issue of port clearance by the proper officer though it was well within the authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
