TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal of 630 Kgs. of silk fabrics though their export obligation was for 1250 Kgs. Out of 630 Kgs. of raw silk fabrics exported, 367 Kgs. were returned by the buyers. Thus the export obligations in respect of the raw silk imported duty free fell short by 1,018 kgs. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants by Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Thuglakabad and on due consideration of the submissions made by the noticee before him, the Commissioner of Customs passed the Order dated 29-11-1999 in the following terms : He ordered the confiscation of 366.800 Kg of raw silk fabrics valued at Rs. 5,34,319/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He, however, allowed the redemption of this on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. He al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the export obligation falls within the jurisdiction of the Import Trade Control Authority in terms of the provision of the Exim policy and, therefore, this amount of penalty is liable to be set aside. The ld advocate relied on the following decided cases in support of his contentions : (i) Shrikanta Haldar v. CCE, 1991 (53) E.L.T. 425 (T) (ii) IGE (India) Ltd. v. CCE, 1991 (53) E.L.T. 461 (iii) Alleli & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1122 (Tribunal) = 2000 (89) ECR 435 (T) 3.  I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. As already stated, the facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellants had imported 1500 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods is not contested. Since in this case the confiscation of the re-imported goods is not contested, the imposition of penalty in terms of Section 112(a) is liable to be confirmed. The imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- against the confiscation of the goods of the vlaue of more than Rs. 5 lakh is quite reasonable. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere in these and the same are accordingly upheld. 4. The next point relates to the imposition of interest amount of Rs. 1,88,285/-. This interest is levied in respect of the duty amount of Rs. 3,32,292/-. The Commissioner in his order has not stated under which provision of the Customs Act or rules this interest has been levied. The interest u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are on the point that an adjudication order cannot go beyond the parameters of the show cause notice. As already analysed above, the present adjudication order is fairly within the parameters of the show cause notice issued to the appellants, therefore, the case laws cited before me are not relevant to the facts of the present case. 66/125 6.  The ld advocate of the appellant has also questioned the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and contended that the Commissioner of Customs has no jurisdiction to adjudicate for the non-fulfilment of the export obligation as this falls within the jurisdiction of the import-export Trade control authority. On carefully consideration of this submission, it is observed that it is not in dispute ....