TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is further found that no further opportunity was given by the Customs Department by giving a fresh notice to the appellant after disposal of the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals). Under such facts and circumstances, following the ruling of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the appellant s own case, ORIENTAL TRIMEX LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT under similar facts and circumstances, these appeals are allowed. It was held in the case that The respondent/revenue, having sold the goods, which it could not have done, since the appeal was pending at the relevant time, we find that there is no good reason for adjustment of redemption fine. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No.50601-50604 of 2019 (SM) - FINAL ORDERS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/50603/2019 C-A-Cus-DII 243/2015 dated 11.03.2015 04/2014/ADC/ICD/TKD dated 10.01.2014 21/2013 dt.20.11.2013 339301 dt.27.09.2013 Value Rs.14,32,311/- RF Rs.4,00,000/- Penalty Rs.1,50,000/- 4. C/50604/2019 C-A-Cus- DII242/2015 dated 11.03.2015 06/2014/ADC/ICD/TKD dated 10.01.2014 18/2013 dt.20.11.2013 4184613 dt.26.07.2011 Value Rs.21,84,783/- RF Rs.6,00,000/- Penalty Rs.2,00,000/- 3. The brief facts are that the appellants imported rough marble blocks and filed 4 bills of entry during 26.07.2011 to 24.09.2013 at ICD, TKD, new Delhi. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity period, etc and also prayed for a decision on merits. The Adjudicating Authority passed separate orders all dated 10.11.2014 confiscating the goods, with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine under Section 112 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned orders-in-appeal passed during March, 2015, was pleased to dismiss the appeals confirming the order-in-original observing that the appellant failed to produce the import licence and further they have violated the provisions of Section 48, as the goods were not cleared by completing the formalities within the stipulated period. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent in the appeal, the appellant be disbursed the sale proceeds as reduced by the amount of penalty. It is further urged that no redemption fine is payable or deductible from the sale proceeds, as the goods are not available for redemption. It is further urged that in response to the appellant s query under RTI, the appellant received reply dated 14.02.2019 from the Dy. Commissioner, ICD (Import), TKD, informing that the goods have been auctioned/sold mentioning their date of auction container-wise, date of final disposal and the amount fetched. 7. Ld. Counsel further urges that under the similar facts and circumstances, with respect to similar orders in respect of three other shipping bills, which were filed as mentioned herein ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 15 containers were disposed of during May/June, 2015 as is evident from the copy of the reply under RTI dated 25.01.2019, a copy of which has been filed by the appellant. Out of the 15 containers, two containers had been sold in Feb., 2015 during pendency of the appeal. Thus, evidently, 13 containers were disposed of after disposal of the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) in March, 2015. Thus, the Revenue is entitled to adjust the redemption fine also. 9. Opposing the contentions of the Revenue, ld. Advocate for the appellant states that the impugned orders-in-appeals were never served upon the appellants and it was only when the appellants approached the Hon ble High Court in Writ Petition No.WP (C)198/2019, the Hon ble Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
