2012 (12) TMI 988

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri D.D. Joshi, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty on the appellants Suketu Jhaveri, Bhimsen Singh and Nikhil Shipping Agency have been imposed Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively under Section 112 of the Customs Act and penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 50,000/- on Suketu Jhaveri ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....248 and Hamid Fahim Ansari v. CC - 2009 (241) E.L.T. 168. Therefore, he submitted that penalties on all the appellants be withdrawn. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Considered the submissions and examined the records before me. In this matter, appellants were held to be punishable as per Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted are prohibited by the Customs Act or any other law of land. In this case, neither the description of the goods nor the quantity or value of the goods were violated and it is also not held that they have been misdeclared by the appellant. Further, it was not found that imported goods are prohibited by any provisions of the Customs Act, Foreign Trade Policy or any other Act. Therefore, in this c....