Petitioner Company Allowed to Re-Export Confiscated Diamonds Under Customs Act

The court allowed the petitioner company to re-export 'Uncut Diamonds' confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962, upon payment of a redemption fine and penalty. The court found that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction in directing confiscation and permitted the re-export based on the Kimberly Process Certificate. The petitioner was directed to pay the fines under protest, with the right to challenge them before the appellate authority. The judgment ensured timely filing of an appeal to contest the penalties, ultimately granting permission for re-export while preserving the petitioner's appellate rights.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of 'Uncut Diamonds' under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner in directing confiscation.
3. Delay in adjudication affecting the petitioner.
4. Permission to re-export the goods.
5. Imposition of penalty and redemption fine.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner Company, involved in retail sale of Gold and Diamond jewellery, challenged Ext.P11 order confiscating 'Uncut Diamonds' imported under Bill of Entry No. 8034440 dated 13.9.2018 under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order granted an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of &8377; 10,00,000 for re-export within 30 days with the Kimberly Process Certificate. Additionally, a penalty of &8377; 1,00,000 was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act.

2. The petitioner contested Ext.P11 order on grounds including lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner in directing confiscation of goods covered by the Kimberly Certificate for import. The court noted that a delay in adjudication could harm the petitioner, who was allowed to re-export the goods by Ext.P11 order.

3. Considering the circumstances, the court permitted the petitioner to re-export the imported diamonds based on the Kimberly Process Certificate produced as Ext.P10. The petitioner was required to pay the penalty and redemption fine under protest to the respondents. Upon payment, the respondents were directed to allow re-export without delay.

4. The judgment allowed the petitioner to challenge Ext.P11 order regarding penalty and redemption fine before the appellate authority. If the petitioner appealed to the Customs, Excise and Service (Tax) Appellate Tribunal within one month from the judgment, the Tribunal would treat the appeal as timely filed and proceed with expeditious adjudication.

5. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, granting permission for re-export while preserving the petitioner's right to contest the penalty and redemption fine before the appellate authority.

---