9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g both sides, we find that, in adjudication of a show cause notice, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,63,872/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant. The present application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of this amount. This penalty is in connection with absolute confiscation of the goods covered by a bill of entry filed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the grievances raised by the appellant is that, by not giving them copies of the test report and any opportunity of being heard on merits, the adjudicating authority denied them natural justice. The learned counsel has reiterated this grievance with some emphasis. The learned SDR, on the other hand, points out that the Board s circular also provided for the alternative of destruction of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CFL reported that the item imported by the appellant was contaminated with melamine and hence unfit for human consumption. One sample was found to contain living larvae also. Out of the six samples, one sample contained melamine to the extent of 18.5 ppm, another sample contained this toxic chemical to the extent of 74.3 ppm. All other samples contained it around 1 ppm. The CFL found all the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow as to how the reports from Singapore are relevant and also as to what extent those reports are reliable. Prima facie, the goods were liable to confiscation. The learned Commissioner imposed the maximum penalty in this case under Section 112 of the Act (penalty equal to value of the goods). The minimum penalty prescribed under the provision is Rs. 5,000/-. In exercise of his discretion, the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
