M/s. Weston Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7144 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.99 of the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in A. No. C/44/98A in F.O. No. 1180 of 1999-A)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.99 of the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in A. No. C/44/98A in F.O. No. 1180 of 1999-A)
Petitioner: M/s. Weston Components Ltd.
Respondent: Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7144 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.99 of the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in A. No. C/44/98A in F.O. No. 1180 of 1999-A)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.99 of the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in A. No. C/44/98A in F.O. No. 1180 of 1999-A)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 04, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. L.P. Asthana, Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, Mr. G. Prakash, Advocates for the appellant.
Head Note:
CUSTOMS LAW
Redemption fine – Levy of – Goods released to importer on bond being executed – If fine can be imposed. Held that power of Custom authorities to levy fine is not taken away.
Held:
If it is found that the import was not valid or that there was any other irregularity which would entitle the customs authorities to confiscate the said goods, then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed, would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemption fine.(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that redemption fine could not be imposed because the goods were no longer in the custody of the respondent-authority. It is an admitted fact that the goods were released to the appellant on an application made by it and on the appellant executing a bond. Under these circumstances if subsequently it is found that the import was not valid or that there was any other irregularity which would entitle the customs authorities to confiscate the said goods, then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed, would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemption fine.
2. The appeals is dismissed.
1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that redemption fine could not be imposed because the goods were no longer in the custody of the respondent-authority. It is an admitted fact that the goods were released to the appellant on an application made by it and on the appellant executing a bond. Under these circumstances if subsequently it is found that the import was not valid or that there was any other irregularity which would entitle the customs authorities to confiscate the said goods, then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed, would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemption fine.
2. The appeals is dismissed.
