9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Group IV (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant ) in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. In a nut-shell, the facts are that the Addl. Commissioner in his order Nos. S/10-44/97 IV/S/23/SP/98 IV, dated 12-5-1997 ordered the redemption of the confiscated goods on a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- after recording that since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gujarat Travancore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1989 (42) E.L.T. 350 (S.C.) and also in the case of M/s. Dinesh Chandra Jamnadas Gandhi, 1989 (40) E.L.T. 230 (S.C.). It was contended that a strict liability is envisaged under Section 112 and mens rea is not necessary. Therefore the appellant felt that the adjudicating authority should have imposed penalty. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground that margin of profit was higher and since the goods were liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) it would attract provision of Section 112. The adjudicating authority justified non-imposition of penalty as well as less fine by recording that being an actual user and that he has satisfied the bona fides of the importers impression that the goods were freely importable, ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge 243 in 1987 (29) the following observation in Para 19 merits mention : - We will do well to remember, in this connection, that imposition of fine, in effect, amounts to awarding a punishment to the person held liable to pay the same and we can hold a person as liable to punishment only if we find him responsible for some act of omission or commission with reference to the law and the goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
