2017 (2) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al against order-in-original no. 09/2005-AP.COMMISSIONER dated 3rd June 2005 of Commissioner of Customs, Goa which has rejected the declared value, resorted to enhancement of assessable value, confirmed differential duty of Rs. 19,28,943/- with interest thereon, confiscated the goods while acknowledging the lack of their availability, imposed penalty under an unspecified provision in lieu of redem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the impugned order seeking remand to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of these points. 3. None appeared for respondent. Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the contents of the appeal. 4. There is no doubt that the impugned order has merely imposed penalty under section 114A without identifying the person from whom it is to be recovered. I do not find this to be a lacuna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Even if such penalty was imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, this is a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m) and the adjudicating Commissioner has rendered a finding for doing so. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty, presumed to be under section 112 cannot also be faulted. 6. Likewise, imposition of penalty both under sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X