TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also been exonerated by the Court and the Tribunal and therefore, the redemption fine imposed on the appellant is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/22437/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20461/2018 - Dated:- 27-3-2018 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Manu Tom Cheruvally, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhupsharan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. Briefly the facts of the preSent case are that the DRI, Calicut had seized fake Indian Currency Notes worth ₹ 14.99 L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on containing the fake currency notes. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued an Order-in-Original No. 02/2008-09 dated 27.05.2008 confiscating the fake Indian Currency notes of ₹ 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and ₹ 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denominations, with a total face value of ₹ 14.99 lakhs seized under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also confiscated the Maruthi Wagon R Car under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. An option for redeeming the vehicle on payment of an R.F. of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) was granted to the importer under Section 115/125 of the Customs Act, 1962. A personal penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) was impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the finding of the Court recorded in paragraph 27, which is reproduced herein below: 27. It is true that third accused was driving the car which contained the cardboard carton containing counterfeit currencies in which the second accused was also travelling. But Ext. P.5 statement of first accused does not implicate third accused. The second accused has not attributed any knowledge of the contents of the cardboard carton to the 3rd accused. There is nothing in Ext. P. 7 to indicate that the third accused was conscious of the plot to smuggle counterfeit currencies. He has been made an accused only for the reason that he was driving the car in which the second accused was sitting with smuggled goods. Only circumstance proved ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
