2001 (7) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 (G) Cus, dated 2-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad upholding the order of the original authority by reducing the quantum of penalty from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellant. There is a communication from the appellant to the effect that he is not able to engage ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rson. He has also submitted that the impugned goods have lost their value because of the long storage by the Department. He submitted that if the goods under seizure are imported without a specific licence, the person who imported the same should be penalised and not the appellant. 4. Shri A. Jayachandran, learned DR for the Revenue reiterates the Department's view. He submitted that the confis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant had total knowledge that the 12 Nos. computer parts of foreign origin were smuggled into India. Their purchase/ acquisition/storage/sale/attempting to sell etc., is in contravention of the various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the provisions of the Import - Export Policy (1992-97). Hence, the confiscation of the impugned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 there is no burden cast on the appellant to prove that these goods were illicitly imported into the Country. Since the goods are non notified, the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 do not apply in this case. Notified goods are specified under the Notification issued under Section 11B of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner has merely....