2016 (12) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant filed shipping bill No. 5104195 dated 18-12-2000 for exports of Eau-De-Perfume to Maulana Trading Co. LLC, United Arab Emirates under DEPB Scheme with DEPB claim @ 12% of FOB value of Rs. 27,89,568/- under Sr. No. 560 of the product code Sr. No. 62(Chemical). The goods i.e. Eau-De-Perfume ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 5104195 dated 18-12-2000 of declared FOB value of Rs. 27,89,568/- liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, however, having regard to the non availability of the exported goods for confiscation, I impose a fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- on the exporters in lieu of confiscation. ii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the exporter M/s. Maharaja Exports under Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection with confiscation of the goods and confiscation of the goods is not sustainable, penalty is also not sustainable. 3. Shri. D.K. Sinha, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. We find that the claim on DEPB appellant ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not suppose to confiscate the goods. As regard the redemption fine, redemption fine is imposed only for redeeming the goods which was under confiscation. The goods are not available, redeeming such goods is out of question, therefore redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- is not sustainable. As regard the penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed on the appellant, we find that firstly confiscation is not sustainab....