9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial indiscipline in the eyes of law - Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the parameters of remand order -there is no case for enhancement of penalty as pleaded by Department. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tual offender. 2.3 A show cause notice dated 16-7-2004 was issued to him under Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 proposing confiscation of the seized goods under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty on him under Section 112 of the Act ibid. 2.4 On his request the goods were revalued by Deputy Commissioner, Customs Air Port Amousi, Lucknow and was assessed at Rs. 1,12,000/- as against seizure value of Rs. 2,31,000/-. However, he has given no reasons for not accepting the value shown in the bills recovered from Shri Chawla. 2.5 The case was decided vide Order-in-Original No. 19/2004 dated 27-12-2004 by the Joint Commissioner, Customs, Lucknow whereby seized goods were ordered for absolute confiscation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance is extended to the appellant and order of confiscation limited to the goods valued at Rs. 7,610/- is upheld with the option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/- in lieu of confiscation. (c) penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. (d) since all the goods have already been disposed of the sale proceed of the goods may be returned to the appellant after realization of redemption fine and personal penalty. 4. Aggrieved with said order-in-appeal, the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (P), Lucknow filed this revision application on the following grounds :- 4.1 The appellate authority had mentioned that "while remanding the matter back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arding declaration of baggage before Customs authorities under Section 77 of the Customs Act 1962. His exit through green channel, therefore, constitutes wilful mis declaration for which penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable" [refer para 8.4 of the O-I-A]. Inspite of the above observation, the Commissioner (Appeals), has reduced the penalty from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. Since the passenger is habitual offender, as clear from the above observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) also, the reduction of penalty does not appear to be correct. The purpose behind imposition of heavy penalty is to wipes out the margin of profit & also acts as deterrent against repeat offences. Reduction of penalty will not discourage su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods i.e. 150 meters of synthetic cloth valued at Rs. 7500/- and the goods valued at Rs. 110/- (25,110/-25,000/-) total valued at Rs. 7610/- is justified." 5.2 That since the value of the goods as per the bills possessed by the notice was Rs. 25,110/- excluding 150 mtr. Cloth, which comes under free allowance. Therefore, there is no need for the noticee to declare the same. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) had duly appreciated the value of the goods approximately to be the same as declared by the noticee in view of the fact that the sale proceeds was more or less the same i.e. 27,430/- (Refer Para 8.1). 5.3 That the noticee and his father are Ayurvedic Practitioner and are engaged in giving medical treatment to patients suffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the commercial quantity of Sony PS-1 play station i.e. 35 Nos. which can not be considered as bona fide baggage for extending free baggage allowance. Commissioner (Appeal) has observed in para 8.2 of his order as under : "While remanding the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 29-Cus./2005 dated 31-10-2005, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that benefit of free baggage allowance can be extended to such goods which are found to be bona fide baggage and not in commercial quantity even to seizures of undeclared baggage made outside the Airport. This order has attained finality being unchallenged. Still the adjudicating authority has denied the free baggage allowance to the appellant which is a gross judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
