2017 (9) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts : Mr. G. M. Syed Norullah Sheriff ORDER Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.M.Syed Norullah Sheriff, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent - the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chennai dated 29.09.2003, modified in appeal by order of the second respondent dated 31.12.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Customs Act, 1962 and para 2.20 of Exim Policy 2002-2007 should not confiscated under Section 111(d), (i) (l) and (m) of the Act and as to why penalty should not be imposed on both of them under Section 112(a) of the Act. The baggage from which the goods were seized was an unaccompanied baggage. The fact that the petitioner did not travel to the country from which the goods originated is not dispu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the adjudicating authority rejected the petitioner's contention and ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner. So far as Mr.Durai Srinivasan is concerned, since he was not traceable and he did not respond to the intimation given by the Department, proceedings again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... so, when personal penalty is levied. 8. However, no such finding has been rendered by the original authority. This aspect of the matter was not dealt with by the Appellate Authority, but he reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. The Revisional Authority did not reduce the penalty, but dismissed the revision application. While taking note of the grounds of the revision, the Revisional Authority v....