2008 (9) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty could be levied on the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was acting bona fide? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in fixing Redemption Fine of Rs. 10 lakhs; when there was loss and the market price of the imported goods realized by the Appellant was lower than the duty chargeable thereon? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, fine be imposed on the appellant under Section 125 inasmuch as the Commissioner in his order observed that goods belonged to Sh. Ravi Jagota of Youngman and it was he who had placed order for the goods? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the petitioner be liable for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its that the goods-having been sold, the petitioner did not continue to be the owner and redemption fine could be imposed only against the owner or the person who was found in possession of the goods. The petitioner having sold the goods, only the purchaser Ravi Jagota was liable for redemption fine. It is further submitted that quantum of fine could not be more than the difference between the market price and the duty paid. The market price in the present case was lesser than the duty paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that goods having been sold to Ravi Jagota, he was the owner of the goods within the meaning of Section 125 of the Act and not the petitioner who imported the goods. 6. Learned counsel for the Department, ....