2008 (10) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der. 2. Ld. Advocate submits that the appellants deposited the amount before the assessment of Bill of Entry, which is not duty and Section 27 of the Act cannot be attracted. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Banmore Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 689 (Tribunal-Kolkata). He also submits that the appellants paid the amount before assessment of Bill of Entry and thereafter they filed application for abandoned of the goods. He further submits by Order dated 17-11-2007, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act along with penalty. It was directed that duty will be paid at the time of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds were confiscated and redemption fine was imposed under Section 125 of the Act and, therefore, refund under Section 28 of the Act is not applicable. Under Section 125(1) of the Act, the importer is liable to release the goods on payment of fine along with duty. In the present case, it appears that the appellants filed application for abandonment of the goods in order to avoid the payment of huge amount of demurrage. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Wockhardt Hospital & Heart Institute (supra) held as under:- "52. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the liability to pay duty on the goods confiscated under Section 111(o) with option to pay fine in lieu of confisc....