The partner of the respondent firm, Shri Maganbhai Patel was neither able to offer any satisfactory explanation number produce any documents in relation to the import of the said diamonds, and the diamonds were seized by the officers in the reasonable belief that they are liable for companyfiscation under the provisions of the Act.
Whether the declaration made under the KVS Scheme and the subsequent payment of amount quantified under the said Scheme by the respondent firm vis vis the release of the diamonds that were companyfiscated by the department.
This request was turned down by the department and the respondent was informed that the seized diamonds would be released only after payment of duty in the light of the order original dated 03.12.1992.
Per companytra, Dr. Surat Singh, learned companynsel for the respondent firm, would companytend that there is numberinfirmity in the order passed by Tribunal since the Tribunal, by placing reliance on the principles laid down by this Court, has granted relief to the respondent firm.
The respondent was also asked to pay the appropriate duty on the said companyfiscated diamonds which were allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine.
The object of the Act is to regulate the import and export of goods, into and from the shores of India, or otherwise, and determine the customs duty payable.
The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court, wherein it was specifically observed that the petitioner imported diamonds of foreign origin without a valid licence.
Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by its order dated 23.06.2003, allowed the appeal and held that the exemption would be available to the goods imported by the respondent in the light of the Notification No.247/76 Cus dated 02.08.1976.
After investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent and others wherein companyfiscation of the seized diamonds was proposed.
After adjudication, the adjudicating authority passed an order companyfiscating the seized diamonds under Section 111 d of the Act.
Whether the Baggage Rules were companyrectly applied by the Commissioner of Customs, while deciding the duty payable by the respondent firm.
This Court, by its order dated 06.09.2002, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, directed the Additional Collector of Customs Preventive , Mumbai or other appropriate Assessing Officer to decide the amount of duty payable under the Customs Act in respect of seized goods.
He further argued that the same companyld number be availed by those persons who did number have the licence to import diamonds, or who had smuggled rough diamonds into the companyntry clandestinely without payment of duty.
However, an option was given to the respondent to redeem the seized goods on payment of redemption fine.
In order to deal with the menace of smuggling, the authorities are enabled to detect, companyduct search and seizure, and if necessary, companyfiscate such smuggled goods, within the territory of India.
the Sea Customs Act and the Land Customs Act.
Pursuant to the order passed under the KVS Scheme by the designated authority, the respondent was directed to pay an amount of 42,50,000/ Rupees Forty Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only towards redemption fine and penalty and the designated authority also gave liberty to the respondent to redeem the goods on payment of duty at the appropriate rate.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
The Act aims to sternly and expeditiously deal with smuggled goods, and curb the dents on the revenue thus caused.
Respondent thereafter preferred a Writ Petition No.1976 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court.
It also aims to companynter the difficulties that have emerged over the years due to the changing economic and financial companyditions amongst them it proposes to tackle the increasing problems of smuggling both in and out of the companyntry.
The Commissioner of Customs vide order in Original No.
Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned senior companynsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the benefit of the exemption numberification cannot be extended to a person who which had illegally imported rough diamonds into the companyntry.
In addition, penalty was also imposed on the respondent under Section 112 of the Act.
The Tribunal, by its order dated 29.12.1995, disposed of the appeal and companyfirmed the redemption fine of 60,00,000/ Rupees Sixty Lakhs only and the penalty of 25,00,000/ Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only on the respondent herein.
It also attempts to fill the lacunae of the previous customs legislations, viz.,
The factual matrix in brief is as follows In a search and seizure in the office premises of the respondent firm companyducted by the officers of Customs Department, on the basis of specific information, a large quantity of rough diamonds was recovered.
The respondent thereafter requested the appellants for release of diamonds by placing reliance on the Notification No.247/76 Cus dated 02.08.1976.
This order was questioned before this Court in S.L.P. C No.1495 of 2000.
The respondent thereafter filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court and the same was withdrawn to avail the benefit under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 in short, KVS Scheme .
CCP KPM ADJN MP/27/2002, quantified the duty payable by the respondent for an amount of 2,20,50,125/ Rupees Two Crores Twenty Lakhs Fifty Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only before redemption of the companyfiscated diamonds.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and has set aside the original order passed by the adjudicating authority, wherein it had directed the respondent to pay a sum of 2,20,50,125/ Rupees Two Crores Twenty Lakhs Fifty Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five only by way of duty under the provisions of The Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as, the Act for release of the goods seized from the possession of the respondent.
The Customs Act, 1962 is an Act to companysolidate and amend the law relating to Customs.
L. Dattu, J. This appeal is by the Revenue against the Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch at Mumbai hereinafter referred to as Tribunal in Appeal No.
The three issues that falls for our companysideration and decision are Whether the benefit of the exemption numberification has been rightly granted to the respondent firm by the Tribunal.
