Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Oriental Craft Ltd vs C.C. New Delhi (Import & General) on 24 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Customs Appeal No. C/348/2011-Cu[DB]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CC(A)I&G/90/2011 dated 28.03.2011 passed by Commissioner(Appeals) Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Oriental Craft Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C. New Delhi (Import & General) Respondent
Appearance:
None appeared for the Appellant Mr. K. Poddar, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision.24.08.2016 Final Order No. 53258 /2016 Per S. K. Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, New Delhi.
2. In this case, the appellant had imported Hair Band made out of cotton twill tape elastic and processed hen feather. On examination of the imported cargo, the quarantine officer of the Animal Quarantine and Certification Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India reported that the consignment is not fulfilling the import guidelines of Govt. of India vide Notification No. SO 655(E) dated 07.07.2001 and SO 794 (E) dated 28.03.2008; the consignment may be deported/ destroyed immediately as the case may be in larger National Interest. On the basis of such report, the matter was adjudicated vide order dated 21.09.2010, wherein the goods were confiscated, with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. Besides, penalty was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In appeal, the adjudication order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal.
2. When the matter called for hearing today, none appeared for the appellant despite notice.
3. Heard the Ld DR for the Revenue.
4. We find that the goods, in question, are prohibited for import, in terms of the import guidelines issued by the GOI. Thus, confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty are in conformity with the Customs statue. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(V. Padmanabhan) (S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Technical) Member (Judicial)
Neha
2 | Page
C/348/2011-Cu[DB]