2007 (8) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ember (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is against that part of the impugned order which confiscates the goods imported under rotation No. 399/04, Line No. 5 , imposes Redemption fine of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and imposes penalty of Rs. 8.00 lakhs on the appellants M/s. Sheetal Enterprises. 3. The confiscation has been ordered under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. After going ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the goods as well as holding themselves out to be the importers. There is no evidence on record that the appellants are in any way connected with the defaulting EOU M/s. Ancillary Industries Corporation. The impugned goods were detained/seized by DRI on 5-6-2004 and subsequently the goods have been removed from the docks and have been warehoused with DRI's permission where the goods are lying til....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en assessed and the goods have been detained/seized by the DRI, the appellants could not have removed or attempted to remove the impugned goods without the permission of the Customs authorities as well as the DRI authorities. There is also no evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the appellants are patiently waiting for the clearance by Customs and DRI for payment of duty during which they ....