2009 (9) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal against the order dated  13-2-2008 [2008 (226) E.L.T. 371 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. The learned tribunal by that order upheld the order of confiscation for contravention of the provisions of Section 111(bh) and reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 25 lacs. To Rs. 5 lacs, keeping in view the fact that the vessel was for the personal use of the appellant before it. The learned Tribunal has opined t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent had applied for licnece, the D.G.F.T. would have granted the same. Secondly the yacht was for personal use of Respondent herein and in these circumstances, the tribunal was pleased to reduce the amount of fine. Section 125 uses expression as such fine as the said officer thinks fit. It is no doubt true that the A.O. had considered the material before him and imposed the fine in the sum of Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave been granted. Considering that there is no prohibition on import of yacht. In these circumstances, there is a breach. The tribunal therefore, could not have, considering the language of Section 112, done away with the penalty. It was within its discretion to impose penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or Rs. 5,000/- which is greater. In the instant case, we find that considering that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X