2008 (3) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. Shri D.V. Subba Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants takes us through the brief facts of the case relating to the impugned imports by the appellant public sector company. The main thrust of his arguments is that the excess goods for which the appellant company has been proceeded against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctorate General of Revenue Intelligence officials and that too on a specific information, the misdeclaration came to light on detection of a large number of undeclared goods. We note that Section 12(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it abundantly clear that even the goods belonging to Government cannot be treated differently for Customs Duty purposes. Hence, there is no reason to treat the impugne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idering the importers to be a public sector undertaking, he has not imposed any penalty whatsoever. In our view, such action on the part of the Adjudicating Commissioner has given the appellants much more relief than they deserve, considering the extent of misdeclaration which was detected by D.R.I, officials. Hence, there is no scope for reducing the redemption fine any further. 5. In view of o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X