TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGEMENT Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. This case is where the appellants imported the impugned goods during February 1999 to April 2000. Afterwards they discovered that some of the goods imported have not been reflected in the Bills of Entry filed by them and no duty has been paid on the same. On such discovery, the appellants intimated the jurisdictional Chief Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs Act is not applicable in this case as there was no intention to evade duty nor any deliberate suppression, mis-statement etc. He also states that in few other cases adjudicated by the Additional Commissioners and the Commissioner relating to such voluntary disclosure were made they have imposed nominal redemption fine and lesser penalties under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel fairly states that the appellants, to the best of his knowledge, have not appealed against the said order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy dated 28.3.2001. We are of the view that in the light of the uncontested order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, the redemption fine of ₹ 3 lakhs imposed in this case requires to be confirmed. We order accordingly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
