9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, the CHA appellant has onerous responsibility to discharge which in the present circumstances he has failed to discharge and his culpability in the facts and circumstances cannot be ruled out. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty imposed on the appellant is double the amount of penalty imposed on the main offender, i.e., Shri Shabeer Shareef and the same is illegal as per the law. At the most he is liable for the same penalty as that of the main offender. This argument of the learned Counsel has force and therefore, we reduce the penalty to the extent of ₹ 50,000/- as has been imposed on the main offender. - Decided partly in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. C/981/04 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e price certificate issued by M/s.Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan, the manufacturer through their Indian agent M/s. Lakozy Motors Pvt. Ltd. showing production of the car as 2000. The statement of appellant CHA was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 and the statement of Shri Shabeer Shareef was recorded on 26/04/2001 in which he has inter alia stated that he has not imported any vehicle into India and that he was acting merely as a carrier and he has not enough money either to purchase a car or to pay duty thereon. Later on Shri Shabeer Shareef retracted his statement vide dated 03/08/2001 on the ground that the said statement was recorded under coercion. The car was assessed at ₹ 7,82,890/- considering its model as 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne else connected with the transaction. 4.1 He further submitted that basic requirement for imposing penalty under Section 112 is not present in the evidence produced before the adjudicating authority. He also submitted that provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 are penal in nature and therefore, involvement of the person should be proved beyond doubt. He further submitted that penalty has been imposed on the basis of unsubstantiated statement, assumption, presumption, conjecture, etc. 5. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. 6. In the present case the person in whose name the car was imported was having a labour visa and did not have much balance either to buy a car or to pay th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
