2022 (12) TMI 1113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Heard the learned for the parties. Taken up for disposal. 2. The Petitioner has prayed for a direction to Respondent No.2 to pay Rs.2,48,71,619/- as damages along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment to be carried out within two working days. Re-verification is dispensed with. 4. Bills of Entry were filed by the importer- Stone Export H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rawn. The writ petition filed by the importer was also withdrawn on 12 October 2015. 5. Thereafter the Petitioner filed three appeals i.e. Appeal Nos.165/2015, 169/2016 and 170/2016 before the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai including the appeal challenging the rejection of amendment application. The impugned order was passed on 27 May 2016 whereby the following directions were issued: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) In case of redemption of the goods in terms of ii) and iii) above, M/s.Ayman Trading FZE, UAE shall comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962." 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that though the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the aboveme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sold and were not in existence on the date when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order on 27 May 2016. There is no reference whatsoever to the non-existence of the goods. This is a fundamental error in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Had the Commissioner (Appeals) been apprised of the fact that the goods were not in existence, a different order could have been passed. In this ....