2007 (10) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are that on 16-7-1997 Customs officer and security official posted at the warehouse gates of SEEPZ intercepted one maruti car for routine check and found one maroon coloured leather pouch lying open on the seat besides driver i.e. Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The pouch was found containing three small paper packets containing cut and polished diamonds to tally weighing 65.79 cts. valued at Rs. 1,59,98....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods as in the manner as done by the Managing Director. Therefore the action on the Managing Director in removing the diamonds outside the Seepz resulted in violation of policy in terms of notification and contravention of provisions of Section 111(d), (i) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Show cause notice was therefore issued to the jewellery unit and its Managing Director proposing confis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to Rs. 75,000/ and fine in lieu of confiscation of car to Rs. 25,000/- and reducing the penalties on the company and its Managing Director to Rs. 10,000/- each. Hence these appeals. 4. I have heard both sides and find that although the learned Counsel for the appellants is correct in the submission that provisions of Section 111(d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 are not attracted against them....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s from Seepz unit was contrary to the condition of the notification and it is clear that the notification condition was not observed by the appellants at the time of seizure of the diamonds. I, therefore, uphold the confiscation in terms of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. However, since the liability to confiscation is only for contravention Section 111(o) and not for contravention of Section 1....