9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act') for being in the position of an abettor with an exporter, who had not only misdeclared the goods meant for export but had also over-valued the goods with an intention to claim additional or extra duty draw-back to which, he was otherwise not entitled to. 2. It appears the Original Authority took action for, not only levying the penalty, but also proposed as to why the license of the appellant itself should not be cancelled. 3. Insofar as the show-cause notice for levy of penalty under Section 114 of the Act is concerned, the same resulted in the Original Authority passing an order levying a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the appellant-license holder, having found that the appellant's involvement was obvious as an abettor in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bramani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was absolutely no justification for levying such a penalty on the appellant; that the appellant had not suppressed or misdeclared the value or the quantity of the goods sought to be exported; that the appellant had merely gone on and acted as per the instructions of its client and there was absolutely no justification in levying penalty and that even the reduced penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant is not sustainable. 8. It is for urging such submission and grounds, the appellant has raised the substantial questions of law required to be examined in this appeal as indicated in the memorandum of appeal, which reads as follows :- 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the appellants influencing the Customs Authorities to examine only particular packages? 7. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- when there was no evidence of dubious conduct or questionable behavior emanating from the records? 9. We have perused the impugned orders and heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We find none of these questions arise for our examination in the context of the Tribunal reducing the penalty on the appellant. As in the first instance, it is not the Tribunal which had levied the penalty, on the other hand, we find that the order of the Tribunal is in favour of the appellant: and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been reduced t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
