1991 (8) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the basis of documents produced by the Importers and, accordingly, duty was paid, but on physical examination of the goods on 4-10-1988, the goods were not found as per Bill of Entry and invoice and in place of individual components, mounted PCB's were found for which the party did not have a valid licence. The Additional Collector who adjudicated the proceedings as per Order No. 329/89 ordered for confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act for mis-declaration. However, he allowed the goods for re-export on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This order was challenged by the appellants before the Tribunal contending that there was no mis-declaration and this was due to wrong shipment effected by the supplier and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ushan, learned SDR for the respondent. 5. Shri Jain submitted that appellants had not contravened the provisions of Section 111(d) as appellants had no connection with the despatch of wrong goods by the supplier. He said that in view of clear findings of the Collector that appellants did disclose the facts of the mis-declaration to the Department even before examining of the goods, the declaration in the Bill of Entry stood modified and charge of mis-declaration under Section 111(m) is not sustainable. He contended that since there has been a specific proposal with the issue of re-export of goods, it was not correct on the part of the Collector to retract from the proposal and to decline the permission to re-export. He drew our attention....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-(S.C.) and Mis. M.R. Bhansali & Co. v. Union of India & Others in W.P. No. 1333 of 1988, Bombay High Court. 6. Shri Bhushan, appearing for the revenue, submitted that once goods do not correspond in respect of value and other particulars made in the Bill of Entry, goods are liable to confiscation and redemption fine was justified. He said that redemption fine is distinguishable from personal penalty. Redemption fine is a fine in rem which is enforceable against the goods in question and knowledge is not essential ingredient in imposing redemption fine. He stated that the ratio of the decisions cited by the appellants' counsel cannot be applicable to the case in hand as they are distinguishable on facts. On the other hand this issue is c....