9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded from the above two persons also proved that they were aware of their ill will as well as pre-meditated design of the syndicate of above said persons to cause loss to Revenue - there shall be no redemption fine since imports were not under bond and no penalty can be simultaneously imposed on the proprietor Shri Rajesh Jain and Raj Agencies who are one and the same - demand of duty and int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1962. Further, while penalty has been imposed on M/s. Raj Agencies under Section 112(a), ₹ 2 lakhs penalty has also been imposed on Rajesh Jain. If at all penalty is imposable under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 that shall be confined to the extent of amount of duty or ₹ 5,000/- which is greater. The goods imported were not restricted. Therefore, penalty should not be highe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by their own admission under Section108 of the Customs Act, 1962. While Rajesh Jain by his statement dated 20/12/2006, 08/01/2007, 31/12/2007 and 10/03/008 brought out entire questionable modus operandi, that was corroborated by the statement Shri Mahesh Lokhare in his statement of 20/12/2006, 08/01/2007, 03/01/2008 and 10/03/2008. 4. The conduits M/s. Huda Overseas, Ariza Impex and Leo Over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered rival submissions. Investigation result brought by Revenue as above remained uncontroverted by the appellants. 7. None appeared for the appellants M/s. Ariza Impex (C/1073/2008), Shri Mahesh Lokhare (C/1075/2008), M/s Huda Overseas (C/1074/2008) and M/s Leo Overseas. M/s Raj Agencies (C/1072/2008) was only represented. 8. When the goods came from China and such goods were opal gla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
