2004 (2) TMI 568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants and Smt. Radha Arun, ld. SDR appeared for the Department. 3. Shri Laxminarayana, ld. Advocate pleaded that in this case computer parts were seized from the appellants and some of these were disposed off even before confiscation order was passed. He pleaded that computer parts are neither notified goods under Sec. 123 of the Customs Act nor these are the prohibited goods. These can be imported under OGL and therefore, the burden that these are smuggled goods lies on the Department. He relied on the decision of CEGAT in the case of Lajwanti D. Datwani & Ors. v. CC (Prev), Mumbai reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 156 (T) = 2002 (53) RLT 864 wherein it was held that the computer hard disk floppy drives etc. not notified under Se....

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 which were disposed off prior to adjudication in terms of Notification issued under Sec. 110(1)(A) of the Customs Act. The penalty has been imposed on the appellants under Sec. 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act after coming to the conclusion that the seized goods are liable for confiscation under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act and redemption fine has been imposed on the goods which were available for confiscation and were held liable for confiscation. Therefore, the plea of the appellants that penalty has been imposed in lieu of confiscation is not correct. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that in this case the DRI officers had intercepted the parcels sent by courier servic....