TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority having held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, has not confiscated the goods and has not imposed any penalty on the respondent. 4. Learned Departmental Representative brings to our notice that having held that the goods are liable for confiscation, the adjudicating authority should have confiscated the goods and should have given an option of redemption of the goods by imposing redemption fine and should have imposed the penalty. Having not imposed the penalties and confiscated the goods, the order of the learned Commissioner is not legal and proper. It is also his submission that the adjudicating authority has arrived at the conclusion that the importer was liable for penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mports took place through Mumbai port during the period 1996-2000. It is his submission that the importers submitted various documents to show the goods were exported and also showed the Consumption Certificates. After failing to produce any Consumption Certificate for the entire quantity inputs, they paid the amount of the duty involved on imported goods, for which Consumption Certificate could not produced on 14th October 2003 and 18th November 2003 and informed the department about the same. It is his submission that the show-cause notice dated 8th November 2004 for demand the very same of the Customs duty paid by them was issued by invoking the provisions of notification under which exemption was claimed and also proposition for the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the claimed benefit in terms of notification which mandated production of a certificate from the jurisdiction of Central Excise Authorities as to parts has been used for the manufacture of the special medical equipment. It is also on record that the parts which have been imported are declared for use in manufacturing of special medical equipment was not used so and diverted for home consumption. 8. The show-cause notice dated 8th November 2004 as reproduced in the Order-in-Original is issued for demand of duty by invoking conditions of bond executed at the time of clearance of the said parts from the port by claiming benefit of various notification which had specific conditions. The conditions of the notification which are common to all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtation." It can be seen from the above reproduced condition number 48 of notification that in non-compliance of full or part, differential duty needs to be discharged by the importer is only requirement and there is no condition or requirement that adjudicating authority should confiscate the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, nor there is any clause for imposition of penalty on the importer. 9. It is undisputed case in hand, the respondent has discharged the entire Customs duty having not met the conditions of notifications; on being pointed out by the Departmental Officer, if that be so appellant has fulfilled the mandate of notification by paying duty on being demanded. In our considered view adjudicating authority w....