9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25-8-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on the appellant under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing staff to export the prohibited items. After considering the submission of the appellant, the Commissioner of Customs vide the impugned order confiscated the products with the option to redeem the rice and wheat products on payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) and other products on payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hor Logistics v. CC - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 334 (Guj.). 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner has taken a very liberal view as far as imposition of penalty is concerned. He further submitted that export of prohibited item is admitted and the only defense of the appellant is that he had no knowledge of the said export which was done b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... House Agent whereas in the present case the export has been done by the Marketing Manager in the course of his employment on behalf of the appellant. Further, we find that the penalty imposed is also not very exorbitant and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
