Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla vs M/S National Impex Corporation

Appeal No.C/310/2008-DB [Arising out of OIO No.KDL/Commr/13/De-Novo/2008, dt.28.03.2008, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Kandla]

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Appellant

Vs

M/s National Impex Corporation Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Dr. J. Nagori, Addl.Commr.(Authorised Representative) For Respondent: None

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:19.03.2015

Order No. A/10259/2015, dt.19.03.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. On perusal of the records, we find that the notice was returned back with Postal remarks left.

2. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue is that the Adjudicating authority failed to impose redemption fine on the Respondent. He submits that the goods were released on execution of bond and therefore, the Adjudicating authority should have imposed redemption fine. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Weston Components Ltd Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi  2000 (115) ELT 278 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal as follows:-

a) M/s Vibhuti Exports Vs CC Mumbai/Jaipur 2006 (194) ELT 195 (Tri-Del)

b) M/s Sameera Apparels Vs CC New Delhi 2009 (240) ELT 72 (Tri-Del)

c) Bimal Kumar Mehra Vs CC (Import), Mumbai 2011 (270) ELT 280 (Tri-Mum)

3. We find force in the contention of the learned Authorised Representative. In any event, the copy of the bond is not available before us. In view of that, we direct the Adjudicating authority to examine the grounds of appeal and the contention of the Department as to whether the redemption fine would be imposed in the present case in the light of the decision of Honble Supreme Court.

4. The appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed of with the above observations. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 3