2009 (1) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow that the respondent had either knowledge or had reason to believe that the goods in question were liable for confiscation – tribunal rightly deleted the penalty imposed on respondent u/s 112[b] of the Customs Act, 1962 - 343 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2009 - D. A. MEHTA and ABHILASHA KUMARI, JJ. Mr. R.J. Oja, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ORDER .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Tribunal's order in Custom Appeal No.C/1547/05. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant requested for permission to amend the proposed question by substituting the correct section in the proposed question. Accordingly, permission was granted and the amended question reads as under: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the amount of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /1547/05, it is seen from the records that the penalty has been imposed on this person just for directing the transporter to load the vehicle from the factory premises. It is accepted fact that the appellants in this appeal had no knowledge that the goods are liable for confiscation. Nothing contrary is on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case penalty is not permissible. Hence, the im .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X