HARI OM MOUR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS., SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Stay Petition, the applicant prays for unconditional waiver of the pre -deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000.00 imposed upon him, vide Order -in -Original dated 15 -10 -1999.

(2.) SHRI P.K. Sengupta, learned Consultant for the applicant, submits that there is no evidence to the effect that the goods are of foreign origin. The impugned goods are neither prohibited nor notified. Hence absolute confiscation of the impugned goods is bad in law. In this connection, he has invited our attention to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ismail Kunhi Abdulla v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 157 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that when the goods are not prohibited at the relevant time, it is mandatory to give option to redeem the goods as provided under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) HE has also submitted that in the case of R.N. Sharma and eight others in Stay Petition No. 490/99 in Appeal No. C -66/99 heard by this Bench on 17 -5 -2000 [2001 (136) E.L.T. 567 (Tribunal)], it was held that there cannot be absolute confiscation when the goods are not prohibited. Learned Consultant also pleads that the seized Cellular Phones being under OGL as per the Policy, 1997 -2002, the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was illegal and as such, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR, reiterates the order impugned.