9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. These three appeals are against the common order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, imposing penalties of Rs. 50,000/- on S.S. Bindra and Ashwin Mehta and a penalty of Rs 1.00 lac on Abubakar S. Kapadia under Section 112 of the Act. 2. We have heard the advocates appeari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, that they were taking them for delivery to Sapna Saree Centre, at Manish Market which is owned by this appellant. It is the contention of the advocate for this appellant that he and his son Anjum are partners. The representative points to the statement of Farid Kapadia another son of the appellant also a partner. He used to sit in the shop. Even assuming that the latter is true, the statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf not an illegal activity for one to arouse suspicion. What constitutes evidence against this appellant is the further statement of R.C. Sharma that Bindra phoned him around the time of seizure asking him to stay away from home for the reason that the goods have been seized upon. This is certainly suspicious. However, we are of the view that this piece of evidence alone is insufficient to come to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of a plan or a conspiracy to sell the goods. No such specific allegation was made against him. Nor is it possible to infer such an allegation in what the Additional Collector says. The statement of R.C. Sharma and K.L. Sood and Atmanant Agarwal do not say that the import licence was obtained by Bindra with an intention to misuse it. These facts, in our view, are insufficient to justify impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
