TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>DEEC Scheme Violation Appeal Dismissed, Goods Not Confiscated</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (EXPORT), MUMBAI Versus SABINA ENTERPRISES</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (EXPORT), MUMBAI Versus SABINA ENTERPRISES - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 130 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Appeal against Order-in-Original No. 44/2013/CAC/CC(E)/YG/GR.VII- Confiscation of goods imported under DEEC scheme- Alleged violation of end-use conditions- Redemption of goods on payment of fineAnalysis:1. The appeal was made against Order-in-Original No. 44/2013/CAC/CC(E)/YG/GR.VII passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Custom House, Mumbai. The issue in question was whether the goods imported under the DEEC scheme were liable for confiscation due to an alleged violation of the end-use conditions.2. The adjudicating authority refrained from confiscating the goods and imposing any redemption fine, as the goods were already imported and cleared under specific bills of entries. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the goods should be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the end-use conditions were not fulfilled by the importer.3. The Revenue contended that since the clearance was allowed under the DEEC scheme, the goods should have been confiscated, and the importer given the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine. However, the adjudicating authority did not confiscate the goods or allow redemption, leading to the Revenue's appeal against the decision.4. The tribunal noted that the Customs Act stipulates that when confiscation of goods is authorized, the owner or the person from whose possession the goods were seized should be given the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. In this case, the details of the owners were unknown, and the goods were not available for confiscation, leading to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the decision not to impose a fine.5. Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, as the adjudicating authority had correctly refrained from imposing any fine due to the unavailability of the goods and the unknown persons associated with them.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
