2024 (8) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imported by the appellants and imposed redemption fine in lieu of confiscation on the containers which were exported; confiscated containers which are not exported and allowed the same to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine; confirmed duty on the containers which are not exported and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s Patvolk (Division of Forbes Gokak Limited) executed a bond for Rs. 9 crores in terms of the Notification 104/94-Cus dated 16/03/1994 and the Public Notice No. 59/94 dated 03/06/1994. Department alleged that during the period January to June 2000 the appellants have imported 236 containers and out of the same exported som....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st the agent i.e. the appellant. 6. He further submits that it is admitted the show cause itself that even by the year 2003, 231 containers were exported and only 5 containers were in the custody of customs; even after noting the above Learned Commissioner goes on to find that 103 containers were exported without permission as per the Board's circular cited above; Commissioner has further ignored the fact that 73 of the said 103 containers could not be exported as customs themselves have held the containers in ICD Surat and 3 containers were under the custody of DRI, Mumbai. He submits that in the case of the appellant themselves the Tribunal [2003 (156) ELT 590 (Tri.-Kolkata)] held that importers are not required to submit any documentary....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the permitted period. It is the case of the appellants though there was delay in export of the containers, the delay was not due to the appellants but due to the fact that the containers were under hold by the Department itself. The appellants contended that they were in constant correspondence with department as can be seen from the letters dated 24/07/2002, 26/04/2001, 31/10/2002, 30/06/2003, 25/08/2003, 11/09/2003, 12/08/2004, 13/01/2005, 03/03/2005, 05/04/2005, 28/12/2005 and 6/05/2008 submitted by them. They further submitted that the caption of the letters was clear to indicate the subject to be re-export of containers though specifically permission to export the containers beyond the stipulated period was not sought. As the depart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed for the Dy. Commissioner to refuse permission for extension and the action of the Dy. Commissioner has only increased the work and litigation." 11. We further find that in the appellant's own case Tribunal held that "4. A reading of the above paragraph shows that he is not accepting the certificate issued by Calcutta Port Trust & Steamer Agent on the ground that these evidences were not in existence at the time of expiry of six months period and in terms of the notification the same were required to be submitted within a period of six months. However, we find that the proviso to the notification, as reproduced above is very clear and lays down that the containers have to be re-shipped within a period of six months from the date of the....