ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Deputy Collector of Customs, New Custom House, Bombay, confiscating two consignments of Wet Dates under Section lll(d) of Customs Act, 1962 with Redemption Fine of Rs. 1,20,0007- and imposing penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh respectively and on condition that redemption fine should be paid within one month which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).
2. The documents available in the case show that M/s. Causia Exports Enterprise placed an order for two consignments of Wet Dates and Bills of Entry were prepared in the name of the Importer. The Bills of Entry were surrendered as the Importer did not desire to take the goods on account of delay in receipt of the consignments. The price agreed was US Dollars 275 per M.T. It appears that the appellant intervened and offered to take the goods if on account of the deterioration of goods and demurrage charges the price was reduced to US Dollars 215 per M.T. This was agreed upon and Bills on Entry were duly presented by the appellant. The Deputy Collector held that all this was a manipulation and directed the consignments be valued at US Dollars 275 per M.T. This order has been confirmed by Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. The appellant has sent a request for transfer of the appeal to Bombay Bench and alternatively for decision on merits. We find no ground to transfer this old appeal at this stage. We heard Smt. Ruchira Pant, SDR and perused the papers.
3. The records bear out the appellant’s case that the original import was by M/s. Causia Exports Enterprise and since there was delay in receipt of the consignments, the Importer declined to clear the goods, and at that stage the appellant intervened and offered to buy the goods for a price of US Dollars 215 per M.T. on account of deterioration in quality and demurrage charges. The Deputy Collector in her order clearly states that the goods deteriorated. In these circumstances, there was no justification not to accept the price declared by the appellant. Further the appellant by letter, dated 27-6-1987 (HDPC) addressed to the Deputy Collector of Customs, unequivocally declared that the appellant did not want to clear the goods on account of deterioration in quality of the goods and requested the Deputy Collector to deal with the goods as deemed fit. This would clearly attract the operation of Section 23(2) of the Customs Act. In the circumstances, the imposition of penalty also does not appear to be justified.
4. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed.