9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces committed U/s. 111(d), (f) and (m) and U/s. 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962?” - Tribunal noted that if the respondent 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 reduced the amount of fine. - In our opinion, it cannot be said that the said finding and consequent reduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Parulekar, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C.: The Revenue is in appeal 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 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein purchased the same. The Tribunal also noted that if the respondent 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 consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents herein had applied for licence, that ordinarily could have 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/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
