9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals), Hyderabad upholding the order of the original authority by reducing the quantum of penalty from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellant. There is a communication from the appellant to the effect that he is not able to engage any Counsel/Consultant to argue his case. Hence I proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost their value because of the long storage by the Department. He submitted that if the goods under seizure are imported without a specific licence, the person who imported the same should be penalised and not the appellant. 4. Shri A. Jayachandran, learned DR for the Revenue reiterates the Department's view. He submitted that the confiscation of the impugned goods and the imposition of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts of foreign origin were smuggled into India. Their purchase/ acquisition/storage/sale/attempting to sell etc., is in contravention of the various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 and the provisions of the Import - Export Policy (1992-97). Hence, the confiscation of the impugned goods and the imposition of penalty are justified. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cast on the appellant to prove that these goods were illicitly imported into the Country. Since the goods are non notified, the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 do not apply in this case. Notified goods are specified under the Notification issued under Section 11B of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner has merely held that the appellant had knowledge that the computer parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which these computer parts were alleged to have been smuggled into India. Therefore, the impugned goods cannot be held to be smuggled goods and they are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. These 12 computer parts alleged to be of foreign origin valued at Rs. 33,800/- are liable to be released to the appellant. The order imposing of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
