TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original dated 12.12.2009, which upheld Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2009, in terms of which penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2007 specific intelligence was allegedly gathered by Customs to the effect that (i) intact garments in the name of old completely pre-mutilated garments would be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llance was kept. After loading of the second truck both the trucks moved towards the exit gate and were intercepted by Customs officers. On being asked, the drivers of both the trucks, confirmed that they had got the said goods loaded from the impugned container. Further, they informed that they were not having any document related to the impugned goods and that they would get the gate pass at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vity. The said para clearly brings out that as per the appellant s own statement relating to the Bill of Entry in respect of the impugned container was handed over by Mr .Narendra Singh to the appellant to get the same signed from Mr. Shailender Singh who was a G-card holder of M/s P.D. Easwaran, CHA. He got the printout of the concerned Bill of Entry from CMC and gave the same to Mr. Narinder Sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh). In the case of K.I. Pavunni Vs. Astt. Collector [1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC)], Supreme Court has in effect held that a bald retraction without any evidence of coercion does not take away the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act ,1962. Having re....