TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 6-11-2006 which upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant but reduced the same. 2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated a case of illegal import of a Toyata Lexus Car bearing Chassis No. UCF-21-0041608. The current appellant is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was liable for confiscation. The appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that he had no knowledge that said car was illegally imported and is liable for confiscation. The adjudicating authority did not accept the contentions of the appellant and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. On an appeal ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the appellant. It is his submission that the appellant was aware that he was dealing in an imported car and should have been extra careful while dealing in this kind of transaction. Since he has sold the car for commission, which was liable for confiscation, penalty imposed on the appellant is correct and does not require any interference. 5. Considered the submissions made in detail by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harboring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111". From the above reproduced portion it is very clear that the penalty can be imposed on any person if such person knows or has reason to believe the goods ar....