9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (J)]. The facts in this Appeal are - (a) the Appellant imported as many as 27 items - some of them in commercial quantities, e.g. baby garments 56 pieces; (b) the goods would appear to have been detained for the purpose of payment of duty; (c) it does not appear that at the time of such detention the Appellant had made any declaration whatsoever of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessarily imply that the order of confiscation has to be set aside. 4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was neither any misdeclaration nor concealment nor any omission or commission on the part of the Appellant that could have justified the imposition of a fine or penalty. In the course of the hearing the learned counsel relied upon the cases reported in 1970 Crl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each of the cited cases there was a definite request for detention in terms of Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 and detention receipt in respect of the prohibited goods was, indeed issued. 7. That was not the case in either of the two Appeals before us in 1983 ECR 604 and 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1938 or the instant Appeal. The facts were distinguishable. 8. In the instant Appeal, it would appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
