9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant Shri Mohan Nair, is the subject matter of present dispute. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the intelligence gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad indicated that M/s. Angana Exports, having manufacturing unit in Bharuch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in the name of M/s Angana Exports. It has also been contended that the appellant had himself invested money and was owner of the goods. Thus, the department alleged that the appellant had abetted the fraud by actively involving himself in the fraudulent importation of goods, which are liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. On the basis of detailed investigation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is has further been stated that the appellant had not dealt with the imported goods in any manner, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Thus, the appellant contended that the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Act, cannot be sustained. The impugned order in paragraph 50, at page 60 has recorded the statements under summon from the appellant. On detailed analysis of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112(b) of the Act. 5. On going through the case records and specifically, the findings recorded in the impugned order in paragraph 112.17 at page 157, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with such observations made by the adjudicating authority in support of imposition of penalty on the appellant. Further, we also find that the decisions relied on by the appellant is distinguishab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
