2025 (12) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kash Shah, Senior Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. K.A. Jathin, Deputy Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: C J MATHEW : M/s DHL Express India Pvt Ltd is aggrieved not only with the culmination of the proceedings, initiated by show-cause notice dated 27th February 2015 consequent upon interception of 'courier package' handled by them that, though declared to contain 'electronic goods', were f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1962, should be visited upon the appellant herein. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant intimated that the proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 was restricted to the gold bars valued at Rs. 2,14,27,000/- on which original authority found Rs.25,00,000/- to suffice as penalty and that enhancement, undertaken under the authority of section 128(3) of Customs Act, 1962, was not wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant by the original authority for not being equal to the value of the impugned goods, without even a murmur from respondent-Commissioner about non-acceptability thereof, for lack of being legal and proper. 6. Empowerment vested in the first appellate authority to enhance fine, and/or penalty, is subject to placing appellant on notice of such intent. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on any evidence of goods being liable to confiscation owing to which consequence of section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 does not follow. There is no evidence on record that lack of diligence in handling 'courier packages' was restricted only to the consignment intercepted or even to the other thirty-nine consignments; the breach, if at all, would appear to have been uniform and, in the absence of c....