2007 (3) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....K. Sapru and M/s. Daisytek India (Mumbai) had rendered the goods in question liable for confiscation and, therefore, they were liable to be penalized under Section 112 of the Act. The goods in question were "Ink Catridges - Black" covered under Bill of Entry No. 5011, dt. 9-3-99 which was filed in the name of M/s. Sri Kavithapriya Exports by M/s. Tamilnad Clearing and Shipping (CHA). The Bill of Entry had been filed under DEPB scheme. The goods were examined, whereupon a part of it was found to be "Toner Cartridges" against the description (Ink Cartridges - Black) declared in the Bill of Entry. The value of the goods also was found to have been misdeclared. From the results of investigations made by the department, it appeared to them that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pute. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that confiscation of the goods was proposed in the SCN under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and ordered likewise by the Commissioner. The goods were absolutely confiscated, apparently for the reason that nobody had claimed the goods. The confiscation was on the ground of misdeclaration of description, quantity and value of the goods. The allegation raised in the SCN against the present appellants was that they had rendered the goods liable for confiscation and hence attracted the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act. The question to be examined is whether the appellants had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) ibid. The....