9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Jha, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The appellant is a partner of M/s. M. Walters Co. who are a member of the Gems Jewellery Export Promotion Council. The appellant was intercepted on 18-10-2002 at the Kolkata International Airport from immigration counter and he and his checked-in-baggage were searched by the official ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters the preliminary objection stating that under the law, the Commissioner of Customs is the sanctioning authority for prosecution in criminal cases triable in the trial Magistrate s Court and no cognisance of a criminal case under the Customs Act can be taken without such sanction, which is satutorily required. By according such sanction, Shri Jha contends, the Commissioner has only fulfilled a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law is a separate proceedings from the adjudication proceedings in relation to the offending goods. Moreover, according statutory sanction for initiation of a criminal case, in no way debars the adjudicating Commissioner from adjudicating the case. In fact, both the statutory duties, to sanction prosecution, and to adjudicate the cases, are cast upon the jurisdictional Commissioner under the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant was guilty of misdeclaration and attempt to smuggle the impugned goods. However, considering the submissions made and the fact that the attempt to export was foiled by the vigilant Customs Officials and no illegal export could take place as a result, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
