2007 (7) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and S.P. Majumder, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)].  Heard the three Ld. Counsels appearing for the 14 appellants and the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Department. 2. In respect of appeal No. CDM-13/04, the impugned goods were alleged to be third country origin and illegally imported. In res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 10,000/-. The Ld. Advocate further submits that these goods were also of Indian origin and the same after provisional release have been legally exported to Nepal under intimation to Customs Authorities and as such, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is self-contradictory. 4. The Ld. D.R. has no explanation to the contradictory order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... confiscation is Notification No. 50-Customs dated 23-3-80 under Section 11H of the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that the said notification has been issued in the context of specified goods under Section 11-I of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned goods are not specified under Section 11-I and hence, the said notification does not have any application to the impugned goods. 7. After hear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....em according to their own submissions before the Customs Authorities. 8. In regard to appeal No. CDM-15/04 relating to appellant Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, it is the submission of the Ld. Advocates that the Adjudicating Commissioner has not passed a specific order in regard to the appellant nor a copy of the adjudication order has been sent to him. However, the appellant is aggrieved as the imp....