9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case, in brief, are that the on 15-10-2004 the Customs officers visited the office-cum-godown of M/s. Ankush Associates, located at Sadar Bazar, Delhi. They found goods of foreign origin, namely Air Freshner, Body Spray, Beauty Soaps, etc. Shri Kishan Kumar Jain, Proprietor of Ankush Associates in his statement dated 15-10-2004 stated that he did not have any document relating to importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds are of smuggled nature. He also submits that the statement is not sufficient to hold that the goods are of smuggled nature. It is his contention that the Revenue has to establish smuggled nature of the goods. He relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal on this issue. He, particularly, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Kishan Bhatia v. UOI, repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case penalty was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellant, the proprietor of Ankush Associates is engaged in the business of selling of foreign goods. The appellants admitted that the goods are smuggled from Nepal. It is not a case of mere admission by statement. In this case, the appellant admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of penalty, I agree with the submission of the learned D.R. In the case of Radha Kishan Bhatia the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 held that the question of person being concerned in the commission of the offence of illegal importation of the goods is relevant for imposition of penalty. It is noted that Section 167(8) of the said Act pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
