TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were handed over to him by its owner for clearance. Admittedly, the goods do not belong to the appellant and he is not put to any detriment, financially or otherwise, by the absolute confiscation. On the contrary, it would render him liable to discharge the duties liability thereon. For this reason, the plea that he be granted the option to redeem the goods does not appear to be tenable. The g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t these goods of commercial nature were attempted to be removed from the customs area in the guise of personal baggage. 2. The contention of the appellant is that he had every intention of paying duty on the goods but that he was prevented from doing so by officers bent upon seizure. Admitting that he had confessed to the attempt in his statement recorded under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for substantiating the contents of the seizure memo. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheikh Mohd Omer v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta others [1983 (13) ELT 1439 (SC)] which held that even a restriction is a prohibition and, therefore, discretion is vested in their adjudicating authority to confiscate offending goods without granting the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contrary, it would render him liable to discharge the duties liability thereon. For this reason, the plea that he be granted the option to redeem the goods does not appear to be tenable. 6. The goods being rendered liable for confiscation, it necessarily follows that penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is liable to be imposed. There is no argument that the penalties are disproport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
