9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants. Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common Order as they arise out of the same Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Calcutta. 2. The first appellant, Md. Ohidul Islam has been imposed with a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00. Md. Islam was the owner of the truck from where contraband Silk Yarn was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a legal evidence, so as to penalise the noticees. However, in the case of Md. Ohidul Islam, he has relied upon the same statement of the driver without any independent evidence on record. It is not understood as to how the same uncorroborative statement of the driver would become an evidence in case of the appellant, Md. Islam, while the same was not considered to be a legal evidence in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd keeping in view that the redemption fine is required to be paid from the pocket of the said appellant who cannot be faulted upon, I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) only to a token sum of Rs. 3,000.00 (Rupees three thousand) only, while upholding the confiscability of the truck in question under the provisions of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
