2008 (4) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. [Order] - Heard both the sides and perused the records. 2. The Commissioner has held that 473.428 carats of diamonds valued at Rs. 30,12,665/-, which were not accounted for and physically not available for confiscation are also liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 but has refrained from imposing any redemption fine, as the goods are not physically available....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red. Once the goods are held liable for confiscation, fine can be imposed even if the goods are not available." According to the Revenue, the said decision of the CESTAT has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 405 (Mad.) and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Venus Enterprises v. Commissioner reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. A61 (S.C.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plea of the Revenue that the Tribunal, Chennai's Order in the case of M/s. Venus Enterprises on the issue that the redemption fine is imposable even if the goods are not available for confiscation has been upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not appear to be correct. Although it is true that the Tribunal in the cited case held that once t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nus Enterprises is dated 25-10-2005. However, the same Tribunal in the case of Associate Marketing Services v. CC (Airport), Chennai, reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 287 has held that the redemption fine is not imposable where the goods are not available for confiscation and they are not redeemable. This Order is dated 23-9-05. (iv) I further find that the Tribunal, Chennai, vide its Order dated ....