9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be penalized - But the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Act is excessive, reduce it to Rs.25,000/- As regards the penalty imposed under Section 30 - Penalty is unwarranted as the appellant has informed the Department his intention that the goods were to be unloaded at Hyderabad as they were not able to unload at Bombay - Thus, the penalty imposed under Section 30 of the Act is set aside. - C/35/10 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2011 - Hon ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Mr. Lalit Mohan Chandana, Consultant for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Chandrasekar, JDR for the Revenue. Per M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against the Order-in-original No.21/2009-Adjn.-Cus dt. 28/10/2009. 2. Relevant facts that arise for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs Act, 1962 but allowed the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs under Section 125 of the Act. He also imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh under Section 112(a) and a further penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 30 of the Act. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Consultant would submit that the goods which have been confiscated were further sent to the destination. He would submit that the entire exercise had to be undertaken by the appellant due to an emergency and technical reasons for diversion of the flight from Bombay to Hyderabad. He would submit that the adjudicating authority himself in the order-in-original has come to a conclusion that the non-filing of manifest by the appellant was due to human error and no malafides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end to take a lenient view in the matter but I am not acceding to the request of the carrier for transshipment, as there are certain dangerous goods in the cargo." 7. It can be seen from the above findings that the adjudicating authority has himself held that action of appellant of unloading cargo at Hyderabad was due to human error and no malafides can be attributed. If it is the findings, in my considered view, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is excessive. Since the appellant has themselves taken into themselves the unloading of the goods without the supervision of the officers, in my view, they should be penalized. But the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Act is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
