1990 (8) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and sought its clearance under a licence issued on 17-8-1984 and the licence expired on 28-2-1986. It was found that the shipment took place on 5-3-1986 and as such the shipment being subsequent to the expiry of the licence, the import was objected to by the Department. The appellants filed the B/E for home consumption on 30-5-1986. However, on 3-6-1986, they received a message from the suppliers stating that the goods dispatched were defective and that the same may be re-shipped. Accordingly, a prayer for re-shipment was made. In the adjudication proceedings, the prayer of re-shipment was allowed on payment of fine of Rs. 60,000/-. In appeal before the Collector (Appeals) the Collector (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 30,000/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aced reliance on the decision of this Bench in M/s. Peejay Maya Exports reported in 1988 (14) ECR 87 (Cegat WRB), where a view is taken that in the absence of any finding that the appellants were concerned in the illegal import, penalty and fine could be waived. He submitted that taking into consideration the ratio of these decisions and when the bona fides have been accepted even by the Department and when the goods are not brought for home consumption but have been sought for re-export, there is no question of ordering confiscation and imposition of redemption fine. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the adjudicating authority should be set aside. 4. Heard Shri Arya. He however, supported the order passed by the authorit....