2016 (12) TMI 823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 37 & 39/2006/CAC/CC(I)/AKP dated 27.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is regarding the redemption fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds were released provisionally, he imposed fine of Rs. 38 lakhs in lieu of confiscation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, I find that there is no m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shno Marble, it is reduced to Rs. 4.6 lakhs. Subject to such modification, the impugned order of imposition of fine is upheld. 5.2 As regards the penalties imposed, I find that the penalty imposed on M/s Just Marble is Rs. 7.5 lakhs, which is excessive in relation to the value of landed cost of the marble. Hence, I reduce the same to Rs. 2 lakhs. The penalty imposed on Vaishno Marble is also im....