TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty imposed on them u/s 112 (a) was justified; even that was reduced to ₹ 6,00,000/- by the lower appellate authority - no scope for further reduction, or waiver of redemption fine and penalty - appeal dismissed. - C/40123/2013 and C/40130/2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 42447-42448 / 2016 - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the appellant/respondent : None For the Appellant/respondent : Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR), ORDER Both these appeals relate to the common impugned order dated 29.10.2012, and hence are taken up together for common disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Y.K. Enterprises (hereinafter referred to the importer) imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Mohammed Waji Khan, Director, M/s. Y.K. Enterprises and hence appeal No. C/40130/2013. Importer being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order in so far as confirming the original authority s order in confiscating the goods and consequent imposition of fine and penalty and hence appeal No. C/40123/2013. 4. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the department, Ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC reiterated the grounds of appeal. In particular, he pointed out that the investigations by DRI in the matter have clearly brought out that the importer was a partnership firm and not a proprietary one. Hence, the setting aside of penalty on Shri Mohammed Waji Khan under Section 114 AA ibid on the ground that penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han was the proprietor. In the circumstances, also taking into account the role played by Shri Waji Khan as brought out in the OIO, this certainly is a case where penalty can and should be imposed on the partner under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. I find that a penalty of ₹ 9,60,000/- was imposed by the original authority on Shri Waji Khan under 114 AA ibid. The contention by the department that the penalty under Section 114 AA, which has been set aside by the lower appellate authority should be restored has merit. However, in my considered opinion, taking into account of the redemption fine and penalty already imposed on the goods/importer, a lower penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
