2016 (4) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), dated 7.4.2004. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in export of marble articles such as table tops and in March 2000, the appellant filed two shipping bills bearing No.1000028444 dated 15.3.2000 and N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner of Customs adjudicated the matter vide his order dated 31.7.2000 and held the goods to be liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. He gave option to the appellant to redeem the goods and take them back to the town on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each of the two consignments and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each. The appellant paid the t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were imposed by the earlier Commissioner. He further submitted that the appellant in fact did not get any undue benefit as the goods in question were not exported against the EPCG licence and were taken back to town. He also submitted that the appellant had already discharged the export obligation in excess of the stipulated export obligation, even before filing of the two shipping bills. He also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period varied from $ 30/- to $ 70/- per sq.m. We also note that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has also observed that by overvaluation, the appellant would have got the benefits of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 11,17,402.73 (approx.) by showing the export towards fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG licence dated 21.3.1996. As per the remand order of the Tribunal, the ....