TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to prove its contention - in view of the facts and circumstances of the case penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act has been rightly imposed on the applicant for the offense committed by the applicant. The quantum of penalty is reasonable and commensurate to the nature of the offense. Government also finds no merit in the plea of the respondent to extend the benefit of free allowance to the passenger. As per Section 79 (2) read with Baggage Rules, 1998 the benefit can be extended to the passenger who brought the bonafide goods and truly declared to the Customs. In the instant case both the conditions were not fulfilled by the passenger. - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.373/99/B/13-RA-CUS - ORDER NO. 16/2016-CUS - Dated:- 24-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds 4.1 The Orders of the respondents are bad in law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 4.2 Both the respondents failed to see that the true declaration made by the Applicant before the concerned officers at Airport and nothing concealed nor misdeclared by the Applicant. 4.3 The respondent ought to have seen that the applicant had no any bad antecedent in the past and further he brought the goods not for trading but for his relatives and friends in India as gifts for them. 4.4 Both the respondents have failed to see that the applicant had opted red channel to prove his bonafideness that he has got dutiable goods. However, the offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnel. Spot adjudication was conducted on having applicant's request for waiver of Show Cause Notice. During the course of hearing before the adjudicating authority the passenger admitted the fact that she had brought the impugned goods and attempted to walk through green channel without declaring to Customs under Section 77 of the Customs Act,1962. The impugned Order-in-Original ordered for the confiscation of the gold jewellery under Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, read with Section 3(3) Foreign Trade (Development Regulations) Act, 1992 with an option to redeem the impugned gold for re-export on payment of fine of ₹ 1,50,000 /- under Section 125 of the Act, ibid and a penalty of ₹ 37,340/- was imposed under Section 112 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have been discovered if not for interception by the proper officers of Customs. Hence the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Act, 1992 . 10.1 There is nothing on record to show that the said submission has been made under any pressure or duress. In fact it is undeniably a voluntary statement made by the applicant during the course of personal hearing granted in the interest of justice clearly admitting that the impugned gold jewellery weighing 124 grams brought by the applicant was not declared by her before the Customs Officer, thus she contravened the provisions of Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962. 10.2 Government opines that any oral submission made before the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
