9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No. 128/92 dated 29-1-1992 in the case of Shri Firoz Mohamed Abdulla passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. 2. The case relates to confiscation of gold kara weighing 80 gms. worth Rs. 23,840/- but with an option for re-shipment on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. At appeal stage, the imposition of personal penalty was set aside as not l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, without specific reference to clause (a) and (b) indicates that he was penalised under both the clauses is not legally tenable for if that was so the adjudicating authority should have specifically stated that the applicant was being penalised under both the clauses of the Section 112 ibid. The order of Collector (Appeals) relies upon decided case la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate that the kara was worn on the wrist, which is the normal and usual place for wearing a kara. 5. In the result review must fail. The order of the Collector (Appeals) based on decided case laws is upheld with the observation that it was incumbent upon adjudicating authority to indicate the exact charge and penal provision under which the penalty was imposed. 6. In view of the above, the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
