2012 (12) TMI 988

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty on the appellants Suketu Jhaveri, Bhimsen Singh and Nikhil Shipping Agency have been imposed ₹ 5,00,000/-, ₹ 1,00,000/- and ₹ 1,00,000/- respectively under Section 112 of the Customs Act and penalty of ₹ 2,50,000 and ₹ 50,000/- on Suketu Jhaveri and Bhimsen Singh under Section 114AA of the Cu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, he submitted that penalties on all the appellants be withdrawn. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Considered the submissions and examined the records before me. In this matter, appellants were held to be punishable as per Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, therefore I have to examine whether the appellant has violated Section 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and it is also not held that they have been misdeclared by the appellant. Further, it was not found that imported goods are prohibited by any provisions of the Customs Act, Foreign Trade Policy or any other Act. Therefore, in this case, I hold that appellants have not violated the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act; therefore penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act are not impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X