9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irport after delivery of the TV to him. Accordingly, the applicant has prayed that penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) from the original penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs is too harsh and should be reduced by considering his involvement in the illicit importation of TV only. Whereas the Government finds that the penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs/5 lakhs are imposed by the lower authorities by assuming that the applicant was fully aware regarding hiding of gold bars in the TV stands and thus the applicant was directly involved in the smuggling of all goods, including gold bars. However after detailed examination of all the facts narrated in the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, it clearly emerges that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant in this case for carrying the TV for ulterior design of smuggling of TV for monetary consideration. Revision application disposed off. - F.No. 375/60/B/2016-RA - 160/2018-Cus - Dated:- 11-9-2018 - Shri R.P. Sharma, Additional Secretary ORDER A Revision Application F.No. 375/60/B/2016-R.A., dated 31-8-2016 has been filed by Shri Jitender Singh, r/o H. No. 69A, New Lahore Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110031 (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)Cus/D-I/Air/281-283/2016, dated 17-5-2016, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), NCH, New Delhi, whereby the applicant s appeal is partly allowed to the extent the penalty on the applicant was reduced from ₹ 10 lakhs to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Thailand to India for an amount of ₹ 5,000/- to be given by the person at the Delhi Airport after delivery of the TV to him. Accordingly, the applicant has prayed that penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) from the original penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs is too harsh and should be reduced by considering his involvement in the illicit importation of TV only. Whereas the Government finds that the penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs/5 lakhs are imposed by the lower authorities by assuming that the applicant was fully aware regarding hiding of gold bars in the TV stands and thus the applicant was directly involved in the smuggling of all goods, including gold bars. However after detailed examination of all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of ₹ 5,000/- offered to the applicant for carrying goods from Thailand also clearly indicates that applicant was not knowing anything about secretion of gold bars in the TV stand. Had the applicant been aware that gold bars of ₹ 51,06,360/- were hidden in the TV stand, the applicant would have probably either refused to carry the said TV along with him or would have charged higher amount for carrying so much gold in India. Considering the above facts, the applicant s main fault is apparently that he agreed to carry the TV along with him out of his greed to earn extra ₹ 5,000/- to meet his expenses incurred towards visiting Thailand and this weakness was cleverly used by Mr. Parveen in Bangkok to dupe the applicant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
