TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to call for and examine the records pertaining to the present matter, and thereafter to implement the impugned Order-in- Original No. MCH/ADC/MK/99/2023-24 dated 28.06.2023 (communicated on 30.06.2023) (Annexure D), thereby permitting reexport of the disputed goods; (B) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 3 to refund the amount of penalty and redemption fine in the event the Respondents fail to implement and give effect to the Order-in-Original No. MCH/ADC/MK/99/2023-24 dated 28.06.2023 (communicated on 30.06.2023) (Annexure D), thereb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ('the Act', for short). The Adjudicating Authority also gave an option to the petitioner to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption of fine of Rs. 12,00,000/- ((Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) under Section 125 of 'the Act', for reexport purpose. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner had some issues with the demurrage charges as the Shipping Line raised an invoice of Rs.32.80 Lakhs towards the detention charges. The petitioner eventually settled the charges with the Shipping Line after some negotiation. Ultimately, the petitioner paid the penalty as well as redemption charges on 08.01.2024 and 11.06.2024 respectively i.e. beyond the period of 120 days. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent authority to give permi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil Yajnik at the outset has submitted that the petitioner unquestionably has not filed any appeal against the Order-in-Original under Section 128 of the Act. It is submitted that petitioner was supposed to file an appeal within a maximum period of 90 days i.e. 60 + 30 days and having accepted the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2023, he was supposed to deposit the redemption fine as well as the penalty within a period of 120 days and hence since the same is done after passage of almost one year, the respondents do not have any power to allow the petitioner to re-export the goods. 6. Thus, it is urged that the respondents are ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- Lakhs of fine, except the pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lued at USD 88800 (Rs.65,53,440/-) covered in the Bill of Lading No.HLCUDX3210220834 dated 16.02.2021 under Section 111 (d) and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for re-export purpose only. 8.3 I impose a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Only) under Section 112(a)(i) of the Custom Act, 1962. 8.4 I also permit to re-export of the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty and other charges as applicable as ordered above. 9. This order is issued without prejudice to any other action which may be cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays has been prescribed by the statute for filing an appeal which the petitioner did not avail. In light of the aforementioned facts and the provision of Section 125 of the Act, if the sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Act is examined, it exposits that where a fine imposed under sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Act is not paid within a period of 120 days (which the petitioner did not do and paid after one year), from the date of option given thereunder, such option becomes void unless an appeal against such order is pending. This quintessential feature envisaged in Section 125(3) of filing an appeal and pendency of appeal is missing in the present case. The petitioner has paid the fine almost after a period of one year which is ....