9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant against the order dated 23-7-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, imposing redemption fine of Rs. 80,000/- under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 112 of the said Act on him. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. On receipt of information raids were conducted during the period 30th January to 7t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bench in that appeal upheld the validity of the order of the Collector ordering confiscation of the goods, but remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for limited purpose of deciding whether the goods could be released in favour of the appellant by exercising discretion/power under Section 125 of the Customs Act, by imposing a suitable redemption fine and if so, the suitable redemption f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant as warehouse charges where the goods were kept after seizure and payment of Rs. 20,000/- already made by him and also the short value to the tune of nearly Rs. 6 lakhs of the goods released. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. But in my view, this contention of the learned Counsel is misconceived and not liable to be accepted. There is nothing on the file to substantiate the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im can be in any manner be said to be arbitrary or exhorbitant, especially when the CIF value was not contested by the appellant which was earlier fixed by the adjudicating authority, before the Tribunal. 8. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner cannot in any manner, be said to be illegal or bad in the eyes of law. The impugned order cannot be set aside for the simple reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
