9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- by the original adjudicating authority, which was adjusted against the security deposit given by the appellant at the time of provisional release of the vehicle. The Appellate Authority has set aside the confiscation of the vehicle by observing that there was no justifiable ground for confiscation. However, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- given by the appellant at the time of provisional release is still lying with the department, though they have become legally entitled to get the refund of the same. He submits that the said deposit which is lying with the department may please be taken towards personal penalty on behalf of Vinod Lachwani. 3. As regards the pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf identified the baggage and has offloaded the same. After due adjudication the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 50,000/- on the two appellants. On appeal against the above order, the penalties and confiscation of the seized goods were upheld. Hence the present appeals. 6. Shri S.R. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that he is not claiming the ownership of the halogen bulbs or fax machine but claiming the ownership of the garments. He submits that the garments were packed in separate packages. He is also challenging the imposition of penalty upon the appellants. He submits that their statements were recorded under duress and immediately the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact which is evident by passenger manifest of Druk Airlines Flight. The appellant has not produced anything to rebut the said findings on record. 8. As regards the second appellant Shri Kennedy submits that as per his own statement, he was waiting for his brother who was coming with contraband items. A false number plate was also found in the Maruti van. He also submits that had the Customs not intervened the said items, he would have definitely indulged in the transportation of the contraband items being smuggled by the first appellant. As such the imposition of penalty upon the appellant was justified. 9. After hearing both the sides I find that neither of the appellants has not (sic) laid their claim on the confiscated halogen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inds support to the department s version that it was the appellant who was dealing in contraband halogen bulbs. Accordingly I do not find any justification in setting aside the imposition of penalty upon the appellant. However, keeping in view the submission made by Shri S.R. Dutta that the value of the seized goods has been taken on the higher side I reduce the penalty from Rs. 1.0 lac (rupees one lac) to Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy-five thousand only). But for the above modification this appeal is otherwise rejected. 10. As regards the imposition of penalty on Shri Murli Chainani I find that penalty has been imposed upon him under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The said section is for imposition of penalty on any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
