TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Shri S.S. Bhagat, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. After hearing Shri K.I. Vyas for M/s. Gandhi Fibres and sole proprietor Shri A.A. Gandhi, the importer, Shri A.R. Shah in person and ld. SDR and finding that the importers have paid an amount of Rs. 2.97 lakhs and redemption fine and the present appeals pertains to penalty imposed under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at both proprietor, and a proprietary firm cannot be penalised under Section 112 of the Customs Act. We, therefore, set aside the penalty of the Proprietary firm of M/s. Gandhi Fibres and confirm the penalty of proprietor Shri A.A. Gandhi since we find that the proprietor has not only diverted the goods which he knows that he cannot and thus availed the benefit of duty. This would result in allowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. However, if having got an advantage in getting the goods at a certain price which they knew was not the real import price for imported goods being in the business would lead to conclude that they knowingly dealt with goods which they knew was liable to confiscation. They are rightly held to be liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, considering their role, we would re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
