2009 (10) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al on merit after considering the grounds contained in the appeal memorandum. 3. Heard the learned SDR who submits that the original order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which has set aside the confiscation, no longer exists. The Additional Commissioner in de-novo adjudication has confirmed the confiscation. There is no indication that order passed by Additional Commissioner has been challenged. Therefore, he submits that order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper and require no interference. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant in appeal memorandum and also in the impugned order. Since the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) explained the facts and reasons for his conclusion properly, the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 01/RPS-ADC/CUS-ST/OA/2008, dated 25-1-08. In terms of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962 when any goods are confiscated under the Act ibid, such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government. As per Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner of the goods or where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized shall, in addition to the fine in lieu of confiscation, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. It is not disputed that the appellant had claimed ownership of the seized goods and got the same provisionally released in terms of B-11 bond dated 8-8-03 executed by them. The seized yarn were imported duty free by the appellant availing exemp....