2025 (9) TMI 1768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ember (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri Ashwini Kr. Choudhary, Authorized Representative. ORDER: [PER SHRI R. MURALIDHAR] The appellant is a mover of goods between various points. On the ground that in case of the goods moved from Logistics Post, Department of Posts, IMF, Imphal to Logistics Post, Department of Posts, CC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w as to why the goods placed under seizure should not be confiscated and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. After due process, the ld. adjudicating authority absolutely confiscated the goods in question and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity of the appellant cannot be doubted and it cannot be said that they have played a role in the alleged contravention. 7.2. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act is unjustified and prays that the same be set aside. 8. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that the appellant never co-operat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are within the territory of India. The appellant has also taken the details of the person who had booked the consignment and made a copy of his address details available to the Department. When the appellant is neither the actual consignor nor the consignee of the seized goods, we do not find any reason as to how the Show Cause Notice towards confiscation of the same could have been issued to th....