9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on specific information regarding smuggling of costly computer parts and electronic goods intercepted Ambalam Khaja, a passenger who arrived from Singapore at the Anna International Airport, Chennai. On a search conducted in the baggage, it was found to contain Cellphones and Electronic goods worth Rs. 11,71,600/- and the same were recovered under a Mahazar dated 17-9-2000 on a reasonable belief that the above said goods were smuggled into India in violation of the Customs Act, 1962. After recording a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, not only from the said passenger-Ambalam Khaja but also from the appellant, the authority issued show cause notice calling upon the passenger as to why the goods brought from Singapore o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal on the following question of law :- "1. Whether the tribunal was right in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellant in terms of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, when there was no proposal in show cause notice for imposing of penalty under the aforesaid section? 2. Is the tribunal right in concluding that the appellant is liable for penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 when admittedly the appellant had nothing to do with the goods under confiscation inasmuch as he has not involved in any way in acquiring possession or is any way concerned carrying, recovering, depositing, harbouring, keeping concealing, selling or purchasing or any manner directly with any goods which he knows a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal in the case of Fortune Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta reported in 2001 (138) E.L.T. 556 (Tri.-Kolkata). 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of penalty travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice, though such a contention was not raised before the CESTAT, nevertheless, learned counsel submitted that such contention was raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same. We find that after final order was passed by CESTAT on 5-6-2012, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Petition on 27-7-2012 seeking for rectification of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods and Section 112(b) reads as under :- "112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person, - (a) .................. (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d admitted that tickets for the travel of Ambalam Khaja were booked by the Appellant-Jamal and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was received by him on behalf of Jamal for the said tickets and Rs. 3,000/- was yet to be received. Further, he has stated that including booking of 4 tickets for Ambalam Khaja, he has booked 30 tickets in the name of the appellant; employees of M/s. Wins Tours and Travels Shri K. Sakthivel and Shri N. Natarajan in their statements dated 28-9-2000 have also confirmed booking of tickets for Ambalam Khaja on instructions of the appellant. Further statements were recorded from one Natarajan, who had also confirmed that the payment for the tickets would be made by the appellant only. Further more in the statement given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
