2022 (2) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 113(g) of Customs Act, 1962 though allowed to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 7,00,000 and further imposition of penalty of Rs. 7,00,000 under section 114 (iii) of Customs Act, 1962 for the four containers of the consignment having been loaded onto the vessel, MV Itha Bhum (Voy-149W), that sailed on 18th April 2008 even as the 'let export order (LEO)' was granted only on 19th April 2008. In the proceedings initiated against the appellant herein, along with their 'custom house agent' and the agent of the shipping line, by show cause notice dated 14th December 2009, it was alleged that M/s UM Cables Ltd had disregarded the requirements mandated in section 50 of Customs Act, 1962 by failing to produce the shipping bill before the 'proper off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Inc. [2009 (248) ELT 122 (Bom.)] and it was held that '5. In our opinion, the concept of redemption fine arises in the event the goods are available and are to be redeemed. If the goods are not available, there is no question of redemption of the goods. Under Section 125 a power is conferred on the Customs Authorities in case import of goods becoming prohibited on account of breach of the provisions of the Act, rules or notification, to order confiscation of the goods with a discretion in the authorities on passing the order of confiscation, to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. Such an order can only be passed if the goods are available, for redemption. The question of confiscating the goods would not arise if there ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with penalties attendant thereto. 6. We find that the 'let export order (LEO)', stipulated in section 50 of Customs Act, 1962, had been granted on 19th April 2008. With that, the process of export which was the responsibility of the exporter stood completed even if belatedly. The breach in loading of the cargo on the vessel ahead of grant of 'let export order (LEO)' is attributable to the person-in-charge of the conveyance and not the exporter. Nonetheless, the goods, having been loaded in contravention of the prescription in section 40 of Customs Act, 1962, was liable to confiscation under section 113 (g) of Customs Act, 1962. That finding in the impugned order is without fault. However, the goods were not available for confiscation by ....