Page 12 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

x EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Confiscation (Contd.)
size starting from 3w to 350w and cut/small solar cells used for various
solar applications in order to reduce the cost of solar photovoltaic
modules - Impugned order not sustainable in law and therefore same set
aside - Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 — Pace India v.
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (Tri. - Bang.) ...................... 442
— of exported goods - Two tests conducted on sample of exported goods
confirmed that it is not Nubuck Leather at all, process of snuffing
essential for making nubuck leather having not been undertaken -
Confiscation of goods for improper export under Sections 113(i) and
113(ia) of Customs Act, 1962 justified in view of misdeclaration of the
goods in the shipping bill by the appellant - Goods having been already
exported, redemption fine and penalty imposed upheld - Sections 114
and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — Vas Noorullah & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs
(AIR), Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) .............................. 382
— of seized gold not sustainable as accused discharged primary burden of
its acquisition by producing Bills - See under GOLD SMUGGLING ...... 372
— redemption fine and penalty - Goods imported by appellant produced in
a workshop by mixing sand and gold and various materials are man-
made gold nuggets mixed with other metals and not gold ore, liable to
confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 -
Duty evaded in this consignment being approximately ` 18 lakhs,
redemption fine reduced to ` 15 lakhs - Penalty of ` 10 lakhs, imposed
under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the confiscated
consignment upheld — Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
(Tri. - Ahmd.) ...................................... 417
— redemption fine and penalty - Test report obtained on 21-9-2006,
apparently in favour of the department, cannot be applied retrospectively
and to the goods cleared before the test report - Consequently,
confiscation and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation not justified, no
mala fide intention of the appellants being evident - However,
Department free to collect the applicable duty on the said goods -
Extended period being not invokable, penalty under Section 11AC of
Central Excise Act, 1944 set aside - Penalty imposed on Appellant
Company under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and penalty
imposed on Shri T.C. Vijayan of Usha Traders, Madurai under Rule 26 of
Central Excise Rules, 2002, also set aside — A.R. Trading Company v. Commr. of
C. Ex. (Appeals-II), Bangalore (Tri. - Bang.) ......................... 388
Connivance of Customs Broker not established in non-
declaration/concealment, penalty not imposable - See under PENALTY ... 369
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :
— Article 14 - See under CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING
REGULATIONS, 2018 ............................... 340
— Article 32 - See under WRIT JURISDICTION ................... 309
— Article 226 - See under CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING
REGULATIONS, 2018 ................................ 340
— See also under WRIT JURISDICTION ............... 309, 346
Constitutional validity of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 - See
under CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS, 2018 ....... 340
Criminal prosecution for offences under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962,
bail granted with permission to travel abroad - See under
PROSECUTION ................................... 364
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  12