2004 (6) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es vide Bill of Entry No. 209949, dated 17-5-1999 and out of those, the Company disposed of two machines without seeking prior permission from the competent authority in violation of the Exim Policy 1997-2002. Therefore, those two machines were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act. Since the machines were not available for confiscation, the adjudicating authority did not pass any order regarding the confiscation of the same. However, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on the company appellant No. 1. 3. Regarding the other two machines, there is no allegation of their disposal by the company Appellant No. 1. These machines had been ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(o) as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uced keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Tribunal in the above referred case. The CIF value of the goods disposed off is Rs. 4,15,200/- and as such, the penalty has to be 5% of that value. Accordingly, penalty is reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. 6. Regarding the confiscation of other two machines which have not been sold by the appellants, but are alleged to had not put by them to actual use, the Counsel has contended that since no time-limit under the Exim Policy has been laid down within which the machines were put to actual use by the appellant-company, the same could not ordered to be confiscated and no penalty could also be imposed for non-user of the same, on the appellant-company. 7. The learned DR had contended that ....