9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 123 of the Customs Act – Held that: - address of both the consignor and consignee was not available is baseless- appeal for confiscation and penalty by the Department is therefore, rejected. - C/198/2009-SM(BR) - 209/2010-SM(BR) - Dated:- 4-2-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR, for the Appellant. [Order (Oral)]. - This is an appeal filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. M.N. Traders, Amritsar and claimed that the seized goods were part of the said import. The original authority held that the goods were not notified. However, Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava being Nepal based supplier who has sold the goods way back to M/s. M.N. Traders cannot claim ownership of the said seized goods and accordingly, ordered absolute confiscation of the same. He also imposed a pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the goods have been seized in a Railway Station within India booked from another Railway Station also in India. The allegation that the PW did not contain the names of both the consignor and the consignee appears to be not acceptable. It is possible that the consignor can send goods consigned to self. The submission that the address of the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
