TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings attendant upon confirmation of confiscation ordered under section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute revolves around duty of Rs. 10,38,685/- having been foregone on imports effected against advance authorization no. 6110001060/27.8.2013, covered by bond executed on 5th September 2013 for making good the said amount with interest for breach of notification no. 96/2009-Cus dated 11th September 2009, commencing on 12th September 2013. It was further pointed out that the period of eighteen months for fulfillment of obligation originally stood extended to 24 months in accordance with amendment sheet dated 11th March 2015, which, admittedly, the appellant was unable to comply with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... drew attention to the restitution only after the show cause notice had been issued under Customs Act, 1962. He also contends that it was an admitted fact that the export obligation had not been fulfilled and that, in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal in Prakash Roadlines Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai [2019 (369) ELT 663 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and in KDL Biotech Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai [2015 (327) ELT 305 (Tri.-Mumbai)], of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Unimark Remedies Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai [2017 (355) ELT 193 (Bom.)] and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [1996 (88) ELT 626 (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 follows from the breach of the specific conditions incorporated therein and which, in the circumstances impugned herein, may arise only for non-fulfillment of conditions prescribed at the time of import that continues to be so. 7. The decision of the Tribunal in re Global Boards Ltd has made it abundantly clear, thus, '8. Insofar as the confiscation of the goods are concerned, it has been held in re Sanghi Industries Ltd. that - '6.8 ....... The act of importation and the conditions of importation are two different things and for violation of each of them, separate consequences would follow. In the instant case the duty liability has been imposed for the import of the goods and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty and we hold accordingly. When the goods are liable to confiscation, the adjudicating authority has the power to allow the redemption of the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The goods were released to the appellants at the time of importation under a bond executed by the appellant. The release of the goods was thus provisional. Therefore, when the assessment is finalized subsequently, even if the goods are not available for confiscation, redemption fine in lieu of confiscation can be imposed as has been held in a number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. Therefore the imposition of redemption fine in the instant case is fully justified and is quite legal and we hold according....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....financial year. It could then be said that one of the conditions of the exemption have not been complied with. That is not the case. It is not in dispute that Maruti Udyog Ltd. paid the amount within this period. Therefore, there in fact has been no breach in the condition of the exemption. The goods were therefore not liable to confiscation under clause (o) of Section 111 and the importer not liable to penalty.' 9. The question that arises, therefore, is whether the regularization had occurred, as argued by Learned Authorised Representative, to extricate the appellant from the consequence of the show cause notice. A decision on the contractual breach of obligation entered into in relation to schemes under the Foreign Trade Policy vests ....