9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court. In fact, Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that another question which should have been considered by the High Court is as to whether the appellant, as incharge of the said business, Ravi Jagota was liable for imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the said Act or not - Matter remitted to High Court - Decided in favour of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting 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 by the Appellant was lower than the duty chargeable thereon? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, fine be imposed on the appellant under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was proper, legal and justified?" 3. The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, has refused to do so. A bare perusal of Section 125 of the Customs Act shows that the appellant has raised a question(s) of law which was/were required to be considered by the High Court. In fact, Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
