TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to penalize the appellant to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. There was no documentary evidence nor oral evidence against the appellant. In absence of evidence demonstrating appellant's involvement in breach of law, penalty to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs was uncalled for in view of the fact that the goods are in the custody of customs and no delivery has been taken. 3. On the other hand, Revenue's submission is that when the goods were found to be mis-declared causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue, on the basis of test report of CRCL appropriate adjudication was done ordering seizure and confiscation. The adjudicating authority in para-34 of his order has exhibited his mind as to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods with the classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1962. When he could know that there was a deliberate mis-declaration to willfully export urea from India for undue enrichment he proceeded on the basis of the outcome of the investigation and materials before him. 6. When the appellant was examined under Section 108 he described about his deals and the proprietor appellant clearly stated in para-14 of the adjudication order that how the prohibited goods were escaping notice of the customs which called for the present adjudication. From the very statement recorded which is summarized by adjudicating authority it appears that seizure under customs law was warranted. In para-15 of the order, ld. Authority made reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission of the competent authority and certified to be issued by the proper office as is envisages under Sl. No. 127, Column-6 Nature of Restriction (Policy condition). Since the exporter was exporting subject consignment without fulfilling statutory requirement along with deliberately for declaration. These circumstances renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113(d), 113(h) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) The exporter admitted that the goods previously exported by him (As per Annexure-A) and the goods of present consignments are Urea and alike. (iv) Shri Dinesh Bhardwaj, holder of G Card no. 71/2000 CHA, Shri R.P. Jindal has knowingly fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rim modality when the appellant stated that goods are under seizure but two years have been expired without exercise of option to redeem the goods by appellant on payment of very small under option fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) leveid Mere custody of goods is not sufficient pleading for waiver unless quality of goods is proved to be good and yet having value with passage of time. So also the reason why option to redeem was not availed facie base on sound reason since goods confiscated is no more property of appellant. Keeping in view the financial hardship pleaded by the appellant but finding no merit at this prima facie stage, we have been guided by apex court judgement in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1985 (19) ELT 22,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tally valued at Rs. 1,13,46,980/-) in respect of which no tests were done. 11. What we find is that the goods were declared with the same description in the past 25 consignments also. The goods were exported to the same buyer, that is "Kaz Link Holding Malaysia". During investigations it was found that the goods were procured by the appellant from three traders namely M/s Amit Enterprises, M/s Para Enterprises and M/s Vansh Overseas. The first two suppliers could not be located. The proprietor of the third firm submitted that he had sold goods used as manure to the appellant. So it is clear that the description "mud additive chemical" was a subterfuge used for fertilizer only. 12. During investigation Shri Manish Singhal appellant admitte....