9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order] - This petition has been filed under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "the Act") for a direction to the Tribunal to refer following questions of law for opinion of this Court arising out of order dated 30-4-2002 [2003 (152) E.L.T. 335 (Tribunal)] of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty could be levied on the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was acting bona fide? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in fixing Redemption Fine of Rs. 10 lakhs; when there was loss and the market price of the imported goods realized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also imposed, besides penalty. On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the redemption fine which was sought to be challenged by the petitioner. 3. We have perused the order of this Court dated 16-3-2004 [2004 (175) E.L.T. 79 (P H)] and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18-5-2007 [2007 (213) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods-having been sold, the petitioner did not continue to be the owner and redemption fine could be imposed only against the owner or the person who was found in possession of the goods. The petitioner having sold the goods, only the purchaser Ravi Jagota was liable for redemption fine. It is further submitted that quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal, we find that no contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that it was not the owner at the time of import when the duty was attracted. This being the position, the question No. 1 has to be answered against the petitioner and we do so, accordingly. 11. As regards question No. 2, there is no finding in the order of the Tribunal on the issue of market price of the goods. From perusal of order of the Commissioner, we find that value of goods has been taken to be Rs. 19,58,414/- while in the same order, it is mentioned that duty paid was Rs. 35,46,456/-. There is no allegation that market price was higher than the duty paid. Under proviso to Section 125 of the Act, redemption fine could not exceed the amount equal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
