9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is against the order of the Commissioner imposing on the appellant a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Act. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are these. The appellant travelled from Delhi to Bombay on 31-7-1995 by flight IC 184 of Indian Airlines. When the flight landed at Bombay, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched him and found that he was car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a specific flight back to Bombay and during that flight recover the currency. 4. On these facts the Commissioner has found the foreign currency liable to confiscation and the appellant liable to penalty. The confiscation of the currency is not questioned before me. The only issue for consideration is the penalty imposed on the appellant. 5. The Counsel for the appellant points out and, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence imposable under Section 112(a) of the Act. 6. The departmental representative contends that since confiscation of the currency, which he says was found from the appellant, is not challenged, clause (a) of Section 112 would apply. 7. I am completely unable to accept this argument. Even assuming that the currency was found from the possession of the appellant, I do not see how any penalty c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
