9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cult for him to arrange such a huge amount of personal penalty. In this case the adjudicating authority has not made any distinction between the main smuggler and his accomplish i.e. the appellant - the penalty imposed appears to be too harsh and beyond the propensity of the offence committed by the appellant. Penalty imposed reduced to ₹ 4 lacs., to be adjusted out of pre deposit and balance amount to be paid in installment of ₹ 10,000/- per month till the amount of penalty imposed is recovered from the appellant - appeal disposed off. - Customs Appeal No. C/51114/2018-CU [DB] - Final Order No. __52868/2018___ - Dated:- 6-8-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) For the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or which he has suffered a huge loss to the extent that he lost his job with M/s. BWFS, Pvt. Ltd. Before the original adjudicating authority and alos to Appellate Authority, he has accepted the lapse on his part and also requested for a lenient view to be taken while imposing penalty on him. The fact remains that the appellant was not main smuggler, who smuggle the gold into the country, but only facilitated the same for some monetary consideration. The ld. Advocate also impressed upon that for the facilitation of smuggling activity of the two main noticees, the appellant would have got on 10,000 Rs. as his facilitation charge. Also, at present the appellant is working with some private company where he is getting a meager salary of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht Pvt. Ltd. as he was authorized cargo handling agent at there. He has lost the job after his involvement in the smuggling activity, he has accepted his mistake and prayed for lenient view while imposing penalty. We find that in this case the, adjudicating authority has imposed the same penalty on the two main accused that is noticee no 1 2 and also the appellant to the extent or ₹ 12,50,000 under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. We also find that appellant suffered a lot by loss of his job and thriving on a meager salary. It would be difficult for him to arrange such a huge amount of personal penalty. In this case the adjudicating authority has not made any distinction between the main smuggler and his accomplish i.e. the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
