9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed on the appellants under Section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against the said order, the appellants are before me. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant Shri Amit Nagi is the proprietor of M/s Dev International. One container No.IALU 456243-5 was found in the name of M/s Dev International was put on hold and examined on 17.12.2015 by DRI. On bill of lading, the name of M/s Dev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner of the said goods. In that circumstances, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant. It is also contended that appellants are nothing to do with the goods in question. As no evidence has been produced by the Revenue with regard to the ownership of the said goods of the appellants, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t circumstances, Shri Amit Nagi cannot be held of be an importer of the said goods. In that circumstances, no penalty can be imposed on the appellants as held by this Tribunal in the case of Manisha Karia @ Manisha Shah (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "2. It is a unique case where no bill of entry has been filed by any of the appellants before us and in the IGM no reference of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her no bill of entry or bills of entry has been filed by any of the appellants, therefore, the allegation of undervaluation or misdeclaration of quantity is not sustainable. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms." 7. In view of the above observations, the impugned order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
