TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (11) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. Subsequently, the goods were examined by Dock Inspection Staff on 14-8-1991. As per the Inspection Report it is found that 1.132 M.T. consist of concealed items like that of new spectacle frames made of Plastic, Plastic sheets decorative on both sides, Plastic granules, Plastic floor sweepings and sun glass. By letter dated 23-8-1991, the petitioner has stated that only one ton out of the quantity of 13.8 tons contained the mixed up items and also requested that the said goods may be allowed to be cleared after mutilation. The petitioner has also requested for personal hearing before decision without issue of show-cause notice. A personal hearing was given. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras, the third re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and that when the undeclared goods found concealed with declared goods and the offending goods of weight of 900 kgs are appraised at the value of Rs. 5,85,000/-, that the petitioner requested for an order of adjudication and that the adjudication order dealt with the case after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. It is further claimed in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled for any release since it has not declared certain items by concealing the same in order to avoid payment of duty for certain concealed articles. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the goods imported without declaration are liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, and that the order of adjudication has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot re-do the assessment. According to the learned counsel, the respondent department is bound by its own order. He further contends that with regard to the redemption of fine and penalty, the dicta laid down by the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1987 (29) E.L.T. 753] applies to the facts of the case on hand and that this a fit case to be remitted to the respondents to re-do the assessment. 6. Per contra, Mr. P. Narasimhan, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents relies upon an unreported decision in Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd., Madras v. Union of India; represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Kerala High Court in Jian Exports Private Limited v. Union of India [1987 (29) E.L.T. 753] looking at the operative portion of the order of Collector therein has held that the Collector therein did not even investigate what was the market price of the goods imported and that the Collector overlooked that the confiscation and penalty are penal provisions of the statute and such provisions are to be strictly construed and exercised with Judicial discretion. In Shah Rikhabdas Bharwanlal v. Collector of Customs [1961 - II - M.L.J. 443] speaking for the Division Bench of this Court, Raj Mannar, CJ., has held that the Collector of Customs while acting under Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act is obviously acting as a quasi-judicial Tribunal, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to meet such a question. 9. Mr. P. Narasimhan, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel relies upon an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd. Madras v. Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and Others (W.A. No. 620 of 1991, dated 21-8-1991) [since reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 705 (Mad.)]. In the above-mentioned case, the Division Bench consisting of Mishra, J. and Janarthanam, J. has considered the decision of Bombay High Court in Union of India v. Popular Dyechem [1987 (28) E.L.T. 63] wherein it has been held that once it is found in respect of any goods that it had been released after clearance under Section 47 of ....