2017 (2) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0/2005-AP. COMMISSIONER dated 3rd June 2005 of Commissioner of Customs, Goa which has rejected the declared value, resorted to enhancement of assessable value, confirmed differential duty of Rs. 10,98,729/-, with interest thereon, confiscated the goods while acknowledging the lack of their availability, imposed penalty under an unspecified provision in lieu of redemption fine and imposed penalty u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etermination of these points. 3. None appeared for respondent. Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the contents of the appeal. 4. There is no doubt that the impugned order has merely imposed penalty under section 114A without identifying the person from whom it is to be recovered. I do not find this to be a lacuna in the impugned order; penalty under section 114A is liable to be imposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, 1962, this is a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m) and the adjudicating Commissioner has rendered a finding for doing so. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty, presumed to be under section 112, cannot also be faulted. 6. Likewise, imposition of penalty both under section 114A and section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is not improper. 7. In vi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X