9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S.K. Shukla, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Raju These four appeals have been filed by Shri Jaisukh Gobarbhai Savalia, Ms. Mancy H Kumpavat, Shri Vikram Natvarlal Patel and Shri Dhanji Nanji Varia against imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Ld. Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds smuggled this time which were confiscated in the impugned proceedings. He argued that there is no proposal for confiscation of the earlier imports made by the aforesaid two noticees and therefore, Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked and no penalty can be imposed. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Sancheti vs. CC, Ahmedabad - (2013) 292 ELT 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable,- In the instant case, Shri Dhanji Nanji Varia, Shri Vikram Natavarlal Patel and Shri Jaisukh Gobarbhai Savalia have admitted that they have earlier purchased/ polished the diamonds smuggled by the two main noticees. They have admitted that they were not aware of that the diamonds were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rupees fifty thousand only) each. 6. As regards the role of Ms. Mancy H Kumpavat, it is alleged that she was acting as interpreter for the two main noticees for their conversation with the local job workers/ buyers of the diamonds. She was fully aware of the iilicit nature of activities of both the main noticees. She also admitted in her statement about the fact that these two main noticees were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
