9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. These appeals arise out of the common order and hence they are heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Appellant Osman Jusab Jasraya in Appeal No. C/643/98, father of two sons, one was the tindel i.e. master of a vessel owned by the other son and his brother the appellant herein Abdul Rajak Osma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstructed with secret cavities made to conceal smuggled gold which in fact was found and recovered and ordered to be confiscated. The vessel is therefore correctly ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- imposed meets the requirement of the Customs Act, 1962 and requires no consideration for reduction. Appeal No. C/644/98 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one V.C.R., one Air Conditioner and one Rado watch found in the domestic premises and in use especially when Baggage receipts have been produced and the fact that there has been a liberalisation of import restriction and abolition of the resale condition of such goods which are routinely being imported in baggage. Earlier ban of resale of baggage items would not be applicable especially after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n currency ordered is therefore required to be set aside. Goods seized from the residential premises of Osman Jusab Jasraya are found to be not liable to confiscation. Imposition of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on him cannot be upheld. The same is required to be set aside. 4. In view of the findings hereinabove, the order against appellant Osman Jusab Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
