TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt, Air Cargo & Administration) has confiscated a consignment of goods, which turned out to be not goods ordered for and imported by the appellants, which was Information Technology Software of a specified kind, and which had been abandoned by the appellant but allowed redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs. 5 crore. The Commissioner further ordered that in case the appellant exercised this option of redemption of the goods on payment of said fine, he can take clearance for home consumption on payment of Customs duty of Rs. 257,06,677/-. The Commissioner further ordered in the event of payment of redemption fine as above, the appellant would be also free to reship the goods back to the foreign supplier without having to pay the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fine could be paid on imported goods allowed to be re-exported. Therefore, it follows that such goods are not liable to be confiscated as once the goods are not liable to be confiscated as once the goods are confiscated they can be allowed to be set free only upon payment of redemption fine in terms of the said Section. 3.2 The learned Advocate submits that the Commissioner has erred in law as well as on facts in imposing the penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) ibid. The purported finding of the Commissioner is that the appellant had intended to clear the said goods by mis-declaring the same as Information Technology Software and claiming exemption from duty not entitled, is wholly erroneous and contrary to the materials o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion were not as described by the said Bill of Entry, the appellant sought clarification from the foreign supplier who issued a certificate on 24th September, 1999 that the goods under import were software related items. This certificate was submitted by the appellant to the Customs authorities. The learned Advocate argues that the appellants, therefore, had no occasion to inspect the subject goods to find out whether or not the said goods were as per the claim of the foreign supplier and as contained in the document/certificate issued by them. It is also clear from the records, submits the learned Advocate, that as soon as the appellant became convinced that the goods were those which were not ordered for by the appellant, upon detention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to pay duty payable on the said goods. In the instant case, submits the learned Advocate, that it is an admitted fact that no such order for clearance of the said goods for home consumption under Section 47 or an order for permitting the deposit of the goods under Section 60 ibid had been passed prior to the appellant relinquishing its title to the said goods. He further pleads the purported finding that the appellant's decision to abandon the said goods was an afterthought or after alleging an attempt to evade duty was detected by the Department, was also baseless and devoid of any merit whatsoever. It would not be possible for the appellant to relinquish its title unless the appellant had physically examined the same. There is no materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which are under confiscation are still in the custody of the Customs authorities. 4. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue, adopts the reasoning contained in the order impugned and submits that there is no case for grant of staying as prayed for by the appellant. 5. We have heard both sides. We have also perused the relevant documents on record and also the case-law cited by the learned Advocate, it is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. CC, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.) held that when the goods had been re-exported, neither redemption fine nor duty was to be paid and if the duty is paid the importer is entitled to the refund of customs duty. In the case of G.V. Intern....