9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - it cannot be held arbitrarily that the appellant aided and abetted the passenger in clearance of non bona fide baggage – hence penalty on him is not justified - C/1346/2002 - A/469/2008-WZB/C-I/SMB - Dated:- 30-5-2008 - Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (T) Shri A.V. Naik, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ajay Saxena, SDR, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evidence to conclude that appellant had any prior knowledge about the non bona fide nature of goods and held that proposal to impose penalty against him in relation to 69 packages fails. 4. However, with respect to BDF No. 1915 dated 28-10-1999 of Shri Chenapally Bapu, in the similar circumstances, he held him liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. This was done only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the passenger stated that due to oversight, he forgot to declare Video, camera. The officer also revised value declared in the BDF No. 1915 from Rs. 68,100/- to Rs. 3,24,540/-. The Deputy Commissioner allowed admissible allowances and charged duty of Rs. 1,43,071/-, which was paid by the passenger himself, arranged for the transport Tempo/Lorry No. MH-14-4255 and took the goods out of customs are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance of the goods through customs. The allegations in paras 68.9, 68.10, and 68.11 of the show cause notice are basically incorrect. Nowhere, there is evidence that the appellant had any knowledge about the non bona fide nature of the baggage. 10. Shri Cheenapally Bapu's denial statement is accepted as correct without any cogent evidence on record. On the other hand, evidence showing tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
