TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to CADM) and had procured certificate of test from M/s. Metallurgica, Kolkata. The goods were lying on 5-12-2000 at FEPZ awaiting export. Enquiries were made and a show cause notice dated 26-4-2001, was issued as it appeared : "22. Now from the above it appears that - (i) Goods covered under 7 (seven) shipping bills as aforesaid were attempted to be exported by M/s. HIECL in violation of prohibitions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and Section 67 of the FERA, 1973 and Rules 5, 6 & 7 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Rules, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. GRI and its proprietor Shri Parasmal Bachhawat M/s. HIECL and its Director Shri Subrata Mukherjee have tendered themselves liable to penal action under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962." and M/s. Hilton Industrial & Engineering Co. Ltd., Kolkata, Shri Subrata Mukherjee, Director, M/s. Hilton Industrial & Engineering Co. Ltd., Kolkata, M/s. G.R. Industries, Kolkata and Shri Parasmal Bachhawat, Kolkata were required to show cause as to why : (i) "the subject goods i.e Cast Iron/Steel, misdeclared as CAPM weighing total 180940 kg valued at Rs. 27,14,100 (FOB declared as Rs. 82,71,349.50) and supplied to FEPZ unit for ultimate export without ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g has been done on the same at FEPZ as stipulated in the L.O.P." And passed the following order : (i) "I order confiscation of the impugned 7 (seven) detained export consignments having total declared FOB value of Rs. 82,71,349.50 under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I given an option to the exporter to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs only) in lieu of confiscation, under Section 125 ibid. (ii) I disallow the export of the impugned 74 Nos. of cast iron/steel rolls through FEPZ against the L.O.P No. FEPZ/LIC/H-12/2000/ 630, dated 26-4-2000 on the strength of the subject 7 (seven) shipping bills. On redemption the same ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t P 172 of Vol. V) furnished by the appellant also refers only to the export authorization granted by the Narcotics Commissioner from Bombay to Holland and not the prior movement. Indeed, it may be said that Narcotics Commissioner was not strictly concerned from which place was the appellant to procure the said quantity for being shipped from the Port of Bombay ..........." And thereafter upheld the levy of 'Export duty' on Poppy Husks under Section 3A read with Rules 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Poppy Husks Rules, being expelled by the appellants exporter in that case from Mandsaur district of Madhya Pradesh to Holland via Port of Bombay even though it was not movement of 'poppy husks' from one State to another State within India but an export....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....51 had been passed, but if goods were not to be loaded and the vessel did not get 'entry outwards', the export had not taken place. All earlier attempts in such case were held : "9 ...... In the present case the goods never left the terrestrial limits of India on any day prior to 9th August, 1966. Earlier was an incomplete or inchoate attempt on the part of the respondents...". Therefore, before liability under Section 113 of the Customs Act is determined, it is necessary to examine the facts of separate movements, effected, of the goods; the stage of interception/seizure and finding therefore arrived at as to how the goods are 'Export Goods'. From the records before me, I find that the seizure has been effected when goods were being pack....