2001 (5) TMI 509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ping Bill as Rs. 10,01,170.80 and a total drawback of duty of Rs. 3,84,300 was claimed thereon. On examination of the goods, it was discovered that the goods declared as 'Seat Stay' under DBK Serial No. 87.111 were really 'Seat Fittings' falling under DBK Serial No. 87.116, for which drawback was admissible only @ 5% of FOB value, amounting to Rs. 50,058.54. The Customs authorities alleged that the appellants had mis-declared Seat Fittings as 'Seat Stay' for claiming drawback at higher rate than what was admissible. They, further, held the goods to be "prohibited goods" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act and to be liable to confiscation under clauses (h) and (i) of Section 113 of the Act. They also maintained that the appellants had ren....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... withdraw the entire lot, that since the goods were not liable to confiscation in terms of the aforesaid provisions of Section 113 of the Act, there was no reason for imposition of any penalty on the appellants under Section 114 of the Act and that, at any rate, the quanta of redemption fine and penalty were very much on the higher side. In support of his argument that clause (i) of Section 113 was not applicable to the goods in question, ld. Counsel cited the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anita International v. Collector of Customs [1993 (65) E.L.T. 201 (Cal.)]. He also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of United Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Customs [1999 (107) E.L.T. 704] in support of the contenti....