9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 26-9-2001 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has fixed the redemption fine, for the confiscated goods at Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act and Rs. 23,200/- for redemption of seized Maruti Car and scooter. 2. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of redemption fine, as earlier the confiscation order was absolute. The Commissioner on remand of the case through the impugned order has fixed redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs for the redemption of the seized goods and of Rs. 23,200/- for the release of the vehicles i.e. Maruti Car and the scooter. 3. The present appellant, Shri Nitesh Goel , who is the legal heir of Shri Lalit Goel, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs. He has not considered the facts and circumstances and the period which has lapsed from the date of seizure of the goods till the passing of the impugned order. It has nowhere been recorded by the Commissioner in the impugned order, that the impugned goods are still of the value of Rs. 20 lakhs. It can hardly be disputed that due to lapse of period of over ten years, the condition of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Scooter has not been sought. The learned Counsel has not challenged the validity of the redemption fine quantified by the Commissioner for the redemption of these vehicles. Therefore, that fine stands unchanged.
9. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner is modified and the appeal of the appellant is disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
