2006 (5) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. After hearing both sides and considering that the liability of confiscation of marble blocks under import in this case is required to be upheld. The question reduced is only of determination of redemption fine and penalty consequent to such import having been effected in contravention of the Exim policy. 2. The question of qu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it was observed as follows :- 3. In the past similar consignments were imported by the petitioners and in spite of levy of fine and penalty the petitioners continued to import marble without any licence. In other words, penalty and fine did not get as deterrent to stop further illegal import. In other words, petitioners continued to indulge in illegal import of marble without licence and litig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y by the Customs Act, 1962. The discretion to impose a higher penalty is required so and applied in cases where repeated offences are observed. In the present case, we do not find a repeated offence. In that view of the matter, we would consider this is to be a case covered by the redemption fines and penalties as prescribed upheld in the case of Marmo Classic (supra). Accordingly, keeping in vi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X