Page 318 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

964 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
opinion in a subsequent decision of Supreme Court - Such a change of
opinion of law cannot be taken as a ‘mistake apparent on the face of the
record’ which could be rectified by invoking Section 35C(2) of Central
Excise Act, 1944 - Further, such material cannot be used for unsettling the
settled position attained through disposal of appeal and cannot be
utilized for reopening a concluded decision, which had attained finality
between parties inter se — Malabar Regional Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. v.
C.C.E., Cochin (Ker.) ................................... 708
Red sanders export - Penalty not imposable in absence of evidence of
involvement - See under PENALTY ........................ 587
Redemption of advance authorization licence on non-fulfillment of export
obligation, scope of - See under EXIM ....................... 646
Redemption fine - Adjudication order of re-export of goods on payment of
redemption fine in excess of jurisdiction conferred by Statute - Provisions
of Customs Act, 1962 do not provide for re-export of imported goods on
payment of redemption fine - Ratio of decision in HBL Power Systems
Ltd. [2018 (362) E.L.T. 856 (Tribunal)], squarely applicable - Impugned
order not sustainable in law and therefore set aside - Section 125 of
Customs Act, 1962 — Pace India v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (Tri. - Bang.) ... 442
— and penalty - Imposition of - Imported goods assessed at ‘nil’ value and
shipper on record is non-existent - In such case, redemption fine cannot
be determined on scrap value and penalty imposed on non-existent
entity - Sections 112 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl.
Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................... 849
— and penalty - Sample of exported goods - Retesting of - Assessee even
though obtained a Report from the same Institute, product description
shown in that Report viz., “Cow Lining Leather” not the same as the
export of goods in question viz., ‘Finished Leather’ - Report relied upon
by Revenue, although gives the description of sample as “Cow Softy
Upper Leather (Crunch)”, a mere difference of description of the goods in
these two Reports given by CLRI itself, as obtained by the Revenue and
assessee, not fatal and can be relied upon - Sample goods sent by assessee
for testing obviously not from the lot of the goods exported or goods
confiscated by Revenue, report obtained by Revenue Authorities from
the sample taken from the confiscated export goods, more reliable rather
than the report produced by assessee - Rejection of the prayer for
retesting of samples after a long period of nine years by Tribunal cannot
be faulted - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty in question,
justified - Sections 112 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — HI Fasn Leather
Products Co. v. Jt. Commr. of Cus. (Airport & Cargo), Chennai (Mad.) ............. 532
— Export goods i.e. Nubuck Leather on testing not found to be same as
declared, confiscation, Redemption Fine and penalty sustainable - See
under CONFISCATION .............................. 382
— Foreign currency belonging to Petitioner No. 2 seized from Petitioner No.
1 who is merely the carrier - Owner of currency being known (Petitioner
No. 2) and both the petitioners being before the Assistant Commissioner,
the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Revisionary Authority, there could,
undisputedly, be no question of releasing the currency to Petitioner No. 1
- Setting aside of Order-in-Appeal by Revisionary Authority, wholesale,
thereby rendering the seized currency irredeemable, even by Petitioner
No. 2, unreasonable - Petitioner No. 2 could certainly be permitted to
redeem the currency - Redemption allowed even in case of ‘prohibited
goods’ in view of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 - Foreign currency not
liable to absolute confiscation and to be returned to Petitioner No. 2 on
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  318