9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "the Act") for a direction to the Tribunal to refer following questions of law for opinion of this Court arising out of order dated 30-4-2002 [2003 (152) E.L.T. 335 (Tribunal)] of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty could be levied on the petitioner in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case, fine imposed on the petitioner be sustained since the petitioner had filled bill of entry as per documents given to him by the Supplier, petitioner was not aware about the actual nature of goods and Sh. Ravi Jagota had misused the name of the petitioner-company to further his interests? (vi) Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the contruction of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt dated 18-5-2007 [2007 (213) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods-having been sold, the petitioner did not continue to be the owner and redemption fine could be imposed only against the owner or the person who was found in possession of the goods. The petitioner having sold the goods, only the purchaser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdeclaration was made by Ravi Jagota and conduct of the petitioner was bona fide. No contention was raised before the Tribunal that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods at the time of import. 7. By consent of the parties, we treat the following questions to have been referred for opinion of this Court:- (i) Whether the petitioner was not liable to pay redemption fine after the goods hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we find that value of goods has been taken to be Rs. 19,58,414/- while in the same order, it is mentioned that duty paid was Rs. 35,46,456/-. There is no allegation that market price was higher than the duty paid. Under proviso to Section 125 of the Act, redemption fine could not exceed the amount equal to market price of goods minus duty paid. This being in the negative, redemption fine could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
