9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case also, it is the Revenue’s contention that the goods being of lesser value, required a licence and thus has to be considered as prohibited. However, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of International Seaport Dredging Ltd. vs. C.C. & S.T., Visakhapatnam is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. There are no justifiable reasons to confiscate the betel nuts in question. Penalty u/s 112(a) of FA - Held that:- Penalty in terms of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is imposable where a person does anything or omits to do anything rendering the goods liable to confiscation - The imposition of penalty upon the appellant is also not justifiable and the same is accordingly set aside. Redemption fine imposed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the same in terms of provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 has also been imposed. It is the case of the appellant that confiscation is not valid in law and accordingly there is no question of redemption fine or penalty. 2. Ld. DR reiterates the adjudication order dated 09.05.2017. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. I find that the dispute whether the betel nuts are liable for confiscation by declaring value which were lesser than the price fixed by the DGFT in the Notification. I further find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order to the extent of confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d), imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act ibid. In the present case also it is the Revenue s contention that the goods being of lesser value, required a licence and thus has to be considered as prohibited. However, I find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of International Seaport Dredging Ltd. vs. C.C. S.T., Visakhapatnam (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, I find no justifiable reasons to confiscate the betel nuts in question. 5. As regards penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
