9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners had allegedly successfully smuggled goods into India on other occasions, the adjudicating authority assumes that the petitioners are guilty of smuggling of the value as indicated in the impugned order. The penalty is imposed on an assumption. Such assumption is not supported by any material. Therefore such imposition of penalty on the three petitioners cannot be sustained - petition allowed. - WP No. 385 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2017 - Debangsu Basak, J. Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, Mr. K.K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Advs. for the petitioners Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Advs. for the respondent ORDER The Court : The writ petition is directed against an order dated M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either invoking such provisions or calculating the penalty as imposed in the impugned order. He submits that, Sections 112(a) and 112(b) cannot be applied simultaneously as they govern separate fields. This, according to him, is the first infirmity in the penalty imposed. Secondly, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) would be on the goods liable to confiscation. So far as the three petitioners before me are concerned, one of them has been imposed a penalty of ₹ 125 lacs. So far as the imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) is concerned, there is no goods available with the Customs Authority to impose such quantum against any of the petitioners. Such imposition is arbitrary. The respondent is represented. The impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (b) Roz Mohammed : ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) (c) Sarfaraz Mohammed : ₹ 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) (d) Rajab Ali: ₹ 1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One crore twenty five lakhs only) This order will not be construed to mean that the other penalties and directions imposed by the impugned order are set aside. The parties are at liberty to take steps, in accordance with law, in respect of the surviving portion of the impugned order. W.P. No. 385 of 2017 is disposed of. No order as to costs. At this stage learned advocate for the petitioners seek seven days time to prefer an appeal. Such request being reasonable is accepted. In the event the petitioners prefer an appeal within seve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
