9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e : (i) The currencies have been absolutely confiscated in the impugned order without giving an option to redeem the same on payment of suitable fine. (ii) The penalties are rather harsh. A large number of case laws were cited to show that the Commissioner could have released on payment of redemption fine. 2. The learned advocate drew my attention to the explanation given by the appellant with regard to the possession of the currency. It was stated that when he arrived in India, he declared Saudi Riyals equal to the amount of the currency attempted to be taken out. However, in Para 13 of the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner has given his reasoning for not accepting the said explanation. He has also indicated in Para 14 cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary, Dept. of Revenue, GOI, New Delhi. (vi) Mrs. Yamini Surendra Bhagwanji v. CC - Order No. 4/2005 dt. 14-1-2005 passed by the Joint Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, GOI, New Delhi. (vii) Smt. Suprabha B. Sen v. CC, Mumbai - Order No. 1638/98 dt. 22-12-98 passed by the Joint Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, GOI, New Delhi, (viii) Sh. Abdul Razak Chattanchal v. CC (A), Mumbai - Order No. 126-127/06 dt. 27-4-06 passed by the Joint Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, GOI, New Delhi. (ix) Shri Pallikere Abdul Kader Ahmed v. CC (A), Bombay - Order No. 340/95 passed by the Joint Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, GOI, New Delhi. (x) Shri Abdul H.P. Abudulla v. CC (A), Mumbai - Order No. 771/99 passed by the Joint Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, GOI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en admitted by him in his statement before the DRI Officers given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that charges in the notice against him are proved and he is liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner was justified in imposing the said penalty. In these circumstances, the quantum of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on him is amply justified. Hence, I uphold the imposition of the penalty on the second appellant also. Thus, the matter is disposed of by way of remand as per the directions given supra. The de novo order should be issued within a period of three months after giving an opportunity to the appellants for personal hearing. (Pronounced and dictated in op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
