9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against the impugned order whereby a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) was imposed on the appellants. The appellant is a transporter. The case of the Revenue is that total 26 consignments of smuggled fabric were seized from the appellants godown. Therefore, the appellants are dealing with the smuggled goods, hence, liable for penalty. 2. The contention of the appellants is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that in case nobody is taking responsibility of the goods, itself suggests that those are smuggled goods and the Hon ble High Court held that the transporter is duty bound to verify contents of consignment and also genuineness of names and addresses of consignors. The Hon ble High Court further held that the penalty on the transporter is imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112 of the Customs Act in respect of three un-claimed consignments. As the total value of consignment is Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) will meet the ends of justice. Penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the appellants. The appeal is disposed off as indicated above. The appellants are entitled for consequential relief, if an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
