2018 (8) TMI 1694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E-20001/1997-2002 dated 30^th July 2001. While the goods were yet with the custodian, they were subject to destruction vide panchanama dated 28^th April 2017 on order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Pune dated 24^th April 20017. The show cause notice issued to appellant on 13^th May, 2016 proposing revocation of Customs bonded warehousing licence, recovery of duty along with interest thereon, confiscation of goods under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 was adjudicated by the original authority confirming demand of Rs. 3,22,806/-, along with interest thereon, and, having confiscated goods, imposing penalty of like amount under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. In app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of the Customs duty on the Courier company. As is already reproduced by me, I find that the first appellate authority has modified the order of the adjudicating authority and has ordered for absolute confiscation of the goods. On such absolute confiscation of the goods, the Revenue has not preferred the appeal in their grounds of appeal. If that be so, in my considered view, no demand of duty arise as once there is absolute confiscation, the clearances of the goods do not take place from the Customs area.' and of the decision of the Tribunal in CCL Products (India) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Guntur [2009 (247) ELT 248 (Tri.-Bang.)] which held that '5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms bonded warehouse or outside the unit by just informing the customs authorities has been upheld by this Tribunal in the decision of M/s. Mac Milan India Ltd. (supra). .....' 3. On the issue of penalty, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel that there was no intent on their part to import any goods in violation of any laws of the country and, therefore, issue of show cause notice for recovery of duty or for imposition of penalty was not warranted. 4. Learned Authorised Representative contends that the goods had been imported in violation of restrictions in the Foreign Trade Policy and that the original authority had rendered clear finding of the appellant being well aware of the arrival of consignment coming in the country w....