9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne and penalty is on higher side and is reduced - appeal allowed in part. - C/11/2008 - 303/2008 - Dated:- 1-4-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri T. Chezhiyan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. On 20-9-2006, officers of the Air Intelligence unit of Customs intercepted a passenger Shri Varadarasu Ramaraj, holder of French passport, at the Chennai Airport, on his arrival from Paris. The pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t s order dated 20-4-2007 in HCP No. 1236/2006 wherein the order of detention under COFEPOSA was quashed. 3. The Customs authorities proceeded against Shri Ramaraj under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The show-cause notice issued under this provision was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner. The Commissioner's order, which is presently under challenge, reads as follows :- (i) I order confiscation of the 308 Nos. of gold coins weighing 2496 gms, valued at Rs. 20,46,720/- (M.V) under Section 111(d), (i), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However, I give an option to Shri Varadarasu Ramaraj to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,00,000 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is only against what is described as exorbitant fine and penalty . In this connection, it is submitted that one incriminating factor considered by the Commissioner while determining the quanta of redemption fine and penalty does not exist now inasmuch as, in the above order of the Hon ble High Court, it has been held that Shri Ramaraj was an eligible passenger for purposes of Notification No. 31/2003-Cus., dated 1-3-2003. We have heard learned JDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. We have found a valid point in the submission of learned counsel. The Hon ble High Court has found the appellant to be eligible passenger in terms of the Explanation to Notification No. 31/2005-Cus., which provided for concess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
