2010 (4) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provisionally released earlier against a bank guarantee of Rs. 25 Lakhs. After valuing the goods at a much lower value of Rs. 10,66,617, it cannot be comprehended how the Adjudicating Commissioner can impose a redemption fine of Rs. 77,94,913/- on the face of a clear provision of law under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 that the redemption fine is not to exceed the market value of the goods. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpugned goods to Rs. 10,66,617/-. However, he has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 77,94,913/- after ordering confiscation of the impugned goods which were provisionally released earlier against a bank guarantee of Rs. 25 Lakhs. After valuing the goods at a much lower value of Rs. 10,66,617, it cannot be comprehended how the Adjudicating Commissioner can impose a redemption fine of Rs. 77,94,913/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t claimed. However, we find that the Adjudicating Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs on the first appellant and Rs. 5 Lakhs each on the other 2 appellants totalling to Rs. 60 Lakhs of penalty. There is no justifiable reason apparent from the order for such excessive penalty. Here again, it is noticeable that the Adjudicating Commissioner demonstrated non-application of mind and dealt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X