2002 (2) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... feel the appeals themselves could be disposed of without much ado. 2. Here the impugned order has been passed on the appellants (?). I have put a question mark because admittedly the appellant is a sole proprietor of the firm called Bhairav Printers, appellant in Appeal C/944/2001. Bhairav Printers does not have independent existence than that of Ranjit Sanghvi, appellant in Appeal C/945/2001. B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nto, because the section itself is very clear. Section 112 of the Customs Act says that only if the goods rendered themselves liable to confiscation under Section 112, penalty can be imposed. The fact that it should actually be present for confiscation is not reflected in that section. I, therefore, do not find it necessary to go into that question. I reduce the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- to a nomina .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X