2014 (10) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. ORDER Learned counsel for the appellant states that she has obtained instructions. Appellant had deposited Rs. 1 lac and is ready and willing to deposit another amount of Rs. 1 lac. Penalty of Rs. 3 lac was imposed on the appellant which has been upheld by the Tribunal in their order dated 20th September, 2012. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the following substa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ale. Thus, there was misdeclaration of goods and over-valuation to make undue gain under the Duty Free Relinquishment Certificate Scheme (DFRC). To this extent, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are clear and categorical and do not require any interference. There was misdeclaration of the export goods by M/s. Amber Traders Company. M/s. Amber Traders Company had not filed any appeal against th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ain. 20% being the appellant's share. 5. In the order written by the judicial member, there was no reference to the retraction made by M.L. Chandra on 5th October, 2004. In the order written by the Technical Member, this aspect has been noticed and it is recorded that the case and alibi of M.L. Chandra was different. M.L. Chandra had argued that the application filed with DGFT and the bank....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eeraj Jain is Rs. 7 lacs. Penalty of Rs. 1 lac each has also been imposed on Shailender Singh and Santosh Kumar Jain, but they were not appellants before the Tribunal in the batch of appeals decided by the impugned order. It is submitted that when penalty of Rs. 7 lacs has been imposed on Neeraj Jain, then the penalty of Rs. 3 lacs on appellant M.L. Chandra is not justified even if we accept that ....