TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on - quantum of redemption fine - Held that: - the vehicle in question was involved in transportation of betel nuts whom source could not be explained by the Appellant No. 1 in that circumstance, vehicle is liable for confiscation, and the order of confiscation is justified - redemption fine has been imposed to the tune of ₹ 90,000/- is highly excessive, and is reduced to ₹ 40,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/70449 & 70357/2016-CU [SM] - Final Order No. 71103-71104/2017 - Dated:- 12-9-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Ajay Rajendra, Advocate, for Appellant Shri P. K. Dubey, Superintendent (AR), Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... betel nuts in pickup van. He also did not disclose about the carrying of betel nut to his vehicle owner. He also admitted his crime before the officers. In that circumstance, the goods were seized and proceedings were initiated against both the appellants. The Appellant No. 2 Shri Firoz Ansari s/o Sadiq Ali is owner of the vehicle which was carrying the betel nuts. Proceedings were initiated against both the appellants and in adjudication penalty was imposed on both the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and vehicle in question was confiscated and allowed to redeem payment of redemption fine of ₹ 90,000/-. The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who dropped the penalty on Shri Firoz Ansar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who loaded the betel nuts in pickup van. He also did not disclose about the carrying of betel nut to his vehicle owner. He also admitted his crime before the officers. In the absence of the explanation by the Appellant No. 1 Shri Zubair Ahmad, the penalty imposed on him is justified. The contention of the appellant that he being a poor man and sole bread earner of his family and earning ₹ 4,000/- per month as a driver. It is not acceptable that the driver is receiving a salary of ₹ 4,000/-. Moreover, he himself has admitted that he transported the betel nuts for getting more money. In that circumstance, I hold that penalty imposed on Shri Zubair Ahmad of ₹ 25,000/-, qua on Appellant No. 1 is justified. 7. With regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
