2017 (10) TMI 985

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein he has confiscated the seized goods and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112 (b) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant on 05/04/2014, was coming from Nepal to India by rikshaw and intercepted by the officers ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated. The Adjudicating Authority relying on the invoice produced by the appellant, dropped the proceedings against the appellant. The said order was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who after going through the evidences placed on record hold that the seized goods are liable for confiscation and same can be redeemed on payment of redempt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 6. In this case, the appellant was intercepted by officers of SSB whereas the appellant was returning from Nepal to India and carrying pure gold with him and 239 gms. of gold nose pins, A person who is coming form abroad and having gold item which is restricted item, as per Section 123 of Customs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....big temple, on their notice board mention that Beware from the thief and keep belongings. In that circumstances, carrying the gold in temple is doubtful, therefore, it is a case of smuggling of gold by the appellant from Nepal to India. In that circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, qua confiscation of goods in question. Therefore, order of confiscation of the goods in q....