2009 (8) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cumstance of the case the Hon'ble CESTAT is correct in law in holding that since the imported goods were not available as being already cleared, the same was not liable for confiscation? 2. The premises of the respondents were searched on 28-9-2006 and incriminating documents were recovered. On scrutiny of the documents submitted by the respondents to the Customs Department, at the time of clearance of imported consignment of artificial flowers, it was revealed that there was substantial difference in the value declared by the Respondent to the Customs at the time of filing of Bill of entry. The value declared to the Customs was substantially lower then the value appearing on the seized documents. After investigation, show cause noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, the CESTAT quashed and set aside the order-in-original to the extent of the direction of imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act. 4. CESTAT in its order relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Raja Impex (P) Ltd., 2008 (229) E.L.T. 185 (P&H). The learned Division Bench amongst others, was considering the substantial question of law, namely whether redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed even if the goods are neither available for confiscation nor cleared on undertaking/bond. After considering the various contentions and judgments relied upon, the learned Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Cou....