2005 (9) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able to confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 appropriating a sum of Rs. 1,56,64,500/- paid by the appellants in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as a condition for release and utilization of the goods by the appellants, towards differential duty recoverable under Section 125(2), and also appropriating a sum of Rs. 51,62,413/- towards the value of the goods, which would have been leviable as redemption fine, if the goods had been available for confiscation. 2. We have heard both sides. The appellants challenge the liability to confiscation of goods. We note that the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) has already been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order reported in 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act. The Collector has dealt with the arguments of the importers that the goods in question are not considered as concentrates of alcoholic beverage and also noted that the invoice dated 13-12-91 from the suppliers in Scotland viz., M/s. Morrison Bowmore (Scotch Whisky) Ltd., UK to the Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited, Pune described the goods as whisky concentrates, that in trade parlance the product under reference is known as Alcoholic beverage as seen from the evidence relied upon in the show cause notice issued to the importers and the appellants herein. The findings of the Commissioner on the nature of the goods have been upheld by the Tribunal in the case of Finacord Chemicals cited supra. 3. The decision in the case of ....