2017 (11) TMI 1340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere in the process of exporting "Basmati" rice. The Department had dispute about the description of the goods and therefore, did not permit export. Eventually, the adjudicating authority by an order dated 25.05.2012, confiscated the goods, but offered redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and also imposed penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs each on the company as well as on the Director. The petitioners challenged this order of the Commissioner before the Tribunal. In the meantime, the petitioners deposited the sums of Rs. 10 lakhs of redemption fine and provided for Bank Guarantees of Rs. 10 lakhs each to cover penalty component. The Tribunal by a judgment dated 19.02.2013, allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the adjudicating authority. As per th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erest under such circumstances. Further, the Department had preferred appeals before the High Court against the judgment of the Tribunal. Some of the appeals are still pending. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. E.Merck (India), reported in (1998) 9 SCC, 412, to contend that no interest be paid. 4. Facts are virtually undisputed. The petitioners deposited sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by way of redemption fine pursuant to the order of the adjudicating authority and also offered Bank Guarantees to cover penalties. The Tribunal, having reversed the order of the adjudicating authority by its judgment dated 19.02.2013, the petitioners became entitled to refund of Rs. 10 lakhs and release of Bank Guarant....