9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority under Section Ill(d), (l), (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowing them on payment of redemption fine which also renders the applicant liable for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, ibid. He is also a habitual offender. Government therefore, finds no merit in the plea of the applicant to set aside the redemption fine and personal penalty. - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.373/99-A/B/13-RA-CUS - ORDER NO. 17/2016-CUS - Dated:- 25-2-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by Sh. Baisul Rahuman (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. C.Cus No.1362/2013 dated 30.09.2012 passed by Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the following grounds: 4.1 That the Order of the respondent are bad in law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 4.2 That both the respondents failed to see that the true declaration made by the applicant before the concerned officers at Airport and nothing concealed nor misdeclared by the applicant. 4.3 That the respondent ought to have seen that the applicant had no any bad antecedent in the past and further he brought the goods not for trading but for his relatives and friends in India as gifts for them. 4.4 That both the respondents have failed to see that the applicant had opted red channel to prove his bonafideness that he has got dutiable goods. However the officers have totally ignored this and registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods did not constitute bonafide baggage in terms of Section 77, 79 11 of the Act ibid and were imported in violation of the provision of Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992. Hence the original adjudicating authority confiscated the electronic goods giving an option to redeem them on payment of fine of ₹ 1,50,000 /- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of ₹ 30,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act. The cigarettes were absolutely confiscated, Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against imposition of fine and penalty which was rejected. Now the applicant has filed revision application on the grounds in para 4 above f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating authority under Section Ill(d), (l), (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowing them on payment of redemption fine which also renders the applicant liable for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, ibid. 11. Government further notes that not only has the applicant attempted to smuggle the impugned goods in substantial quantity without declaring but it is an uncontested fact on record he is also a habitual offender. Government therefore, finds no merit in the plea of the applicant to set aside the redemption fine and personal penalty. 12. In view of the above discussion, Government finds no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and upholds the same. 13. The Revision Applications is rejected as devoid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
