9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of M/S. OMEX INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [ 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Bench : The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the Revenue, seeking condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. 2. In view of the reasons as explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, is condoned. The Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the imported goods for violation of Import Trade Control restrictions and the goods were confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act @ 30% and personal penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Act, varying from 10% to 11%. 6. The order passed by the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n violation of ITC Regulations. He also submitted that a high amount of redemption fine and penalty will act as a deterrent for such imports by such unscrupulous persons. 9. After hearing the ld.D.R. for the Revenue and on perusal of record, we find that the enhancement of value has been ordered by the First Appellate Authority on the basis of concurrence given by the importer for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
