2013 (11) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sought clearance of the same at 'nil' rate of duty under advance licence No. 0310105747, dated 11-10-2001. Later on, it came to light that the licensing authority had suspended the said licence on 17-10-2001. The Department issued a show cause notice to the appellant vide notice dated 14-5-2002 wherein it was proposed to confiscate the rough marble blocks of 3281.961 MTS valued at Rs. 4,83,31,825/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a). The said order was adjudicated vide order dated 8-7-2002 wherein the impugned goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to rede....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Ministry of Commerce, there is no violation of the EXIM Policy so as to attract the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He further submits that while regularising the licence and the imports made thereunder, they were asked to pay fine and penalties amounting to Rs. 46 lakhs by the licensing authority and it is on payment of these amounts, the licence was regularised and the imports were permitted. In view of the above, once again confiscating the goods with an option to redeem on payment of heavy fine is bad in law and imposition of penalty on such confiscation cannot be sustained. 3.2 He further submits that the Adjudicating Authority has relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned counsel fairly submits that this decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was not presented before the Adjudicating authority; therefore, he pleads that the matter be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority. Inasmuch as they have already paid a fine of Rs. 1.25 crore and a penalty of Rs. 24 lakhs at the time of provisional release of the goods and the bank guarantee of Rs. 27.25 lakhs is lying with the department, stay be granted against the dues adjudicated in the impugned order. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for Revenue strongly opposes the stay petition and the appeal. He contends that regularisation of the licence cannot per se revive the licence which has already been cancelled. In the instant case, th....