2000 (8) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mports made by the appellants. With the consent of both the sides the main appeals are taken up for final decision by this common order after granting waiver of entire pre-deposit in the matter. 2. The issue involved in brief is that the appellants allegedly due to a clerical error made incorrect declarations of CIF values for LAM COKE when they applied for the Imports Licence in question. The licences were granted by the DGFT authorities and imports were effected for LAM COKE which is admittedly a non-sensitive item. No import of the other inputs permissible and reckoned for grant of the licence were effected. Another feature of the imports is that the imports did not exceed in the overall value limits since. The appellants submit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scation of the goods under Section 111(d) has not been justified, since no Policy provisions of LAM COKE being a restricted or a prohibited item for import has been placed before us. The orders of confiscation and consequently the Redemption Fine determination is therefore required to be redone considering whether there is an offence and liability under Section 111(o) in the facts of this case. The order, therefore, needs to be set aside and remanded back for de novo adjudication as regards the eligibility for confiscation and re-determination or confiscation fine as per law. (b) We have appreciated the ld. Advocate's arguments that the Import Policy provisions, especially para 49 of the Import Policy read with para 110 of the Handb....