9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... origin, illicitly, into India. However, prima facie, I find that the Applicant No.(5) had been penalized without making a discreet enquiry by way of recording his statement of his involvement in the act of smuggling. In view of the above observations, I am of the opinion that the Applicants, namely, Md. Aftab Ahmed, Applicant No.(2) and Shri Rajesh Gupta,Applicant No.(3) could not able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of predeposit of the penalty imposed on each of them. - stay granted partly. - APPEAL NO.C/A/71378-71382/2013 - ORDER NO.SO/75276-75280/2014 - Dated:- 25-2-2014 - DR. D.M.MISRA, J. FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI N.K.CHOWDHURY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI S.CHAKRABORTY,A.R.(ASSTT.COMMR.) ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re case has been built on conjectures and surmises, without any direct evidences on record, to establish that the betel nuts were of third country origin and illicitly brought into India. He further submits that pursuant to the direction of the Hon ble High Court, the Applicant No.(1) being claimant of the betel nuts in question, had already executed a Bank Guarantee for ₹ 8.00 lakh and the Applicant No.(4) being owner of the TRAVERA Vehicle, executed a Bank Guarantee for ₹ 3.00 lakh. He also submits that the goods namely, betel nuts after being confiscated, were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of ₹ 6.00 lakh and the TRAVERA Vehicle in question after being confiscated, was allowed to be redeemed on payment of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that these goods were of third country origin and were smuggled into India. He, however, fairly admits that from the records, it transpires that no statement was taken from the Applicant No.(5), the driver of the TRAVERA Vehicle. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the Bank Guarantees executed by the Applicant Nos.(1) (4) for ₹ 8.00 lakh and ₹ 3.00 lakh respectively, would fairly cover the penalties imposed on them. Regarding the role of the Applicant No.(2), prima facie, I am not convinced with the argument of the ld. Advocate for the Applicants, that the said Applicant might not be involved at all in any manner, in the activity of bringing the betel nuts in question, at this stage. Similarly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
