9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Appellant for the abetting the commission of the Offence. The adjudicating authority has imposed a personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2014, which appears reasonable and commensurate with the offence committed. Accordingly, there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order imposing penalty on the Appellant. The penalty imposed on the Appellant in the impugned order upheld - appeal filed by appellant rejected. - MR. R. MURALIDHAR MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B. N. Pal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Debnath, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CHA firm as alleged in the impugned order. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed on him in the impugned order. 4. The Ld. A. R. stated that the Appellant has actively played role in clearance of cigarettes of Indonesian origin which were concealed inside a consignment declared as Dining Sets. Accordingly, he justified the penalty imposed on them for abetting the offence. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We observe that the adjudicating authority has imposed a personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2014, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In Para 47 of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority has given a finding detailin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport consignment. We also observe that the Appellant has admitted that they have assisted the CHA in clearance of the consignment of cigarettes of Indonesian origin which were concealed inside a consignment declared as Dining Sets. Thus, we hold that penalty is imposable on the Appellant for the abetting the commission of the Offence. We observe that the adjudicating authority has imposed a personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2014, which appears reasonable and commensurate with the offence committed. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order imposing penalty on the Appellant. Accordingly, we uphold the penalty imposed on the Appellant in the impugned order and reject the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
