9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04.1997. The goods were rough granite blocks and require a license for import. The appellant did not have the license issued by the DGFT. Show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the benefit of exemption. It was also seen that the appellant had not fulfilled the condition as per the Notification No.32/97- Cus dated 01.04.1997. The said notification imposed a condition that the importer has to get the items free of cost, whereas the appellant had purchased the imported goods from the supplier abroad which was in contravention of the condition stipulated in the notification. Show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the benefit of notification and to confiscate the goods under Section 111 (m), 111(o) and 111(d) of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be imposed by the original authority for the reasons that there was no licence for the earlier import. Against such order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan appeared and argued for the appellant. The Ld. Counsel fairly conceded that appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification No.32/97-Cus dated 01.04.1997. The notification stipulated that the goods imported should be free of cost. The appellant had not imported the raw materials free of cost and therefore they are not eligible for the benefit of the Notification. However, as the goods on which job works were done after import have already been exported, the demand of duty cannot sustain. The di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the appellant had mis-declared the goods as 'coloured granites'. Only on the examination by the officers, it was noted that the goods are 'rough granites'. Thereafter appellant put forward the claim of Notification No.32/97. Later, the claim as per this notification also was held to be not admissible. The appellant, having misdeclared the goods, the order for confiscation of the goods and direction to impose penalty, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is valid and proper. It is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The issue to be decided in the present case is whether the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the adjudicating authority to recover the duty in respect of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated, the goods after job work and have been exported. The goods are not available for confiscation and for this reason it is not legal and proper to order confiscation and impose redemption fine or penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Sankar Pandi (supra) has upheld the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court that when goods have been re-exported and are not available before the officer, the same cannot be confiscated. We are of the considered view that the order for confiscation passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot sustain. However, we find that the original authority had imposed the penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 112(a) as the appellant did not possess the license for the import dated 08.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
