AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hes imported by M/s. S.S. Watch vide Bills of Entry No. 539381 dt. 28-8-03 and 574396 dt. 27-10-03 as liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act and since the goods are not available, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-; (c) held wrist watches imported in the name of M/s. G.S. Enterprises vide Bill of Entry No. 584680 dt. 12-11-03 as liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and since the goods are not available imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- on M/s. S.S. Watch; (d) held 64000 wrist watch exported by M/s. S.S. Watch Industries as liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Act and since the goods are not available, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- on M/s. S.S. Watch; (e) imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s. S.S. Watch and its partner Shri Sunil Bansal under Section 112 of the Act and penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- each on M/s. S.S. Watch and Shri Sunil Bansal under Section 114 of the Act; (f) imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on M/s. Rama Watch Industries, Rajkot (herein after referred to as M/s. Rama Watch) under Section 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 wrist watches had been purchased from M/s. Geniva Industries and exported as such. The export consignments and import consignments had been cleared after due examination by the Customs. The allegation that the same goods were being exported, re-imported and re-exported in order to claim DEPB benefit is without any basis. (2) Merely because the imported wrist watches were bearing "Romano" and "Sitax" brand names, it cannot be concluded that the same were of Indian origin, manufactured by M/s. Rama Watch, Rajkot or M/s. S.S. Watch, Jaipur. (3) The Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the statement of Shri Manohar Ratilal Lodhia of M/s. Rama Watch wherein he has stated that he manufactures wrist watches of brands "Romano", "Sitax" etc., and that all the production of watches had been exported to Dubai and at declared price of US $8.5 per pce. FOB. But no SCN has been issued to M/s. Rama Watch alleging overvaluation. The wrist watches exported by M/s. S.S. Watch are also of "Sitax" and "Romano" brand and are of the same type. Therefore, there is no basis for allegation of misdeclaration of the value of the wrist watches....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; the export price US $ 8.5 per piece is highly inflated which is clear from the fact that at the time of import, the price declared of the same watches is US $ 0.95 to 1.05 per piece; (c) no gold plating on change of dial or strap was done in respect of the watches exported - the same wrist watches, without any processing, whatsoever, have been exported and re-exported; and (d) the claim of M/s. S.S. Watch that the wrist watches of M/s. S.S. Watch had been manufactured by them in their factory or that the wrist watches purchased from others had been exported after gold plating and changing of straps, is bogus, as the persons from whom the movements and other parts are claimed to have been purchased, are non-existent. (e) M/s. G.S. Enterprises from whom wrist watches are claimed to have been purchased by M/s. S.S. Watch is fictitious firm; and (f) in order to hoodwink the customs authorities, while the exports have been made through Air Cargo Complex, Jaipur and Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad, the imports have been made at Air Cargo Complex, Delhi and Mumbai. 2.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting M/s. S.S. Watch to utilise the blank invoice to forward the imported consignment of 5000 Sitax wrist watches to M/s. Lal Bhai Trading Co., Ahmedabad, the clearing agent of M/s. Rama Watch, handling their exports, clearly indicates that the Romano and Sitax brand wrist watches imported by M/s. S.S. Watch were being exported as such through M/s. Rama Watch. It is also clear that the order to camouflage the export - re-import - re-export - re-import again and again of the same goods - Romano & Sitax brand wrist watches manufactured by M/s. S.S. Watch and M/s. Rama Watch, while the exports were being made through Air Cargo Complex, Jaipur and Ahmedabad, the imports were being made at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi and Mumbai and in addition to this while some of the exports were routed through M/s. Hanu Exports, Jaipur, a firm controlled by Shri Sunil Bansal, some of the imports had been routed through M/s. G.S. Enterprises, whose Proprietor is Shri Girvar Singh of Naguar and whose address was found to be fictitious. The fact that all the exports of 'Sitax' and 'Romano' wrist watches were at US $ 8.5 per piece while all the imports of these watches were at US $ 0.95 to US $ 1.05 per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been rightly imposed on the Appellants except that since in para 116(v) and (vii) of the impugned order, penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs respectively has been imposed on M/s. S.S. Watch under Section 112, separate penalty on Shri Sunil Bansal, partner of M/s. S.S. Watch is not called for. 3.3 However, as regards the redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Act in respect of the goods held to be liable for confiscation but which are not available for confiscation, provisions of Section 125 are attracted only in the cases when either the goods are physically available for confiscation or the goods had been released provisionally against the Bond and as per the terms of the conditions of the Bond, the person from whose possession/control the goods had been seized, is bound to produce the goods whenever called upon to do so. We are supported in this view from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. M/s. Raja Impex (P) Ltd. reported in [2008-TIOL-280-HC-P&H-CUS = 2008 (229) E.L.T. 185 (P & H)] wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the goods are not available for confiscation for the reason that t....