9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A)CUS/ 1145/2015, dated 29-7-2015, issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, who has upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi, confiscating the seized gold chain and gold bangles, weighing 530.0 grams, valued at Rs. 12,98,500/-. 2. The revision application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re him by the applicant. The applicant has also not provided any evidence to show that she had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow her to re-export the confiscated gold. Therefore, no defect can be attributed to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this account and the Government being only a revisionary authority in this case and not an appellate authority, it does not consider it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-, which is equivalent to redemption fine in this case, is certainly on the higher side and considering the fact that the applicant is a Foreign national and has lost her husband recently, the Government considers it as a deserving case for a lenient view. Accordingly, the personal penalty is reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 5. In view of above discussion, the revision applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
