TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the original authority stated to be a case of import not in commercial quantity and not for commercial purpose. - Held that:- Apparently, there is a violation in not taking an IE code before import of the goods. Original authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act. Even before the Tribunal the relevant details as to the number of bags and the value of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESENTED BY : Ms. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (AR), for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 58/2008 (H-II) (D) Cus., dated 27-11-2008. 2. Heard the learned Superintendent (AR) for the appellant/department. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. The respondent appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal of the department. He specifically noted that there was no detail of the goods imported. He has also held that the goods could not be treated as prohibited goods in terms of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the original authority, the department has filed appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be only on a technical ground and could not be treated as a prohibition in the real sense of the term. As the goods are apparently cleared and not available for seizure, the question of confiscating them at this stage also does not arise. There is no valid ground adduced to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has upheld the order of the original authority penalizing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
