2026 (4) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant : Shri Stebin Mathew and Ms. Dishya Pandey, Advocates For the Department : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Mishra, Authorised Representative ORDER JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA: M/s. Time Avenue Pvt. Ltd. [the appellant] has filed this appeal to assail the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) [the Commissioner (Appeals)] by which the appeal filed by the appellant to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hes were seized under a seizure memorandum dated 06.06.2017. Thereafter, a provisional release order dated 21.08.2017 was issued by which the seized watches were released to the appellant on payment of Rs. 82,250/-. 5. However, a show cause notice dated 27.09.2017 was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act should not be imposed on the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 20.11.2018, imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 8. This order was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by an order dated 02.07.2021 dismissed the appeal. 9. It is this order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that has been assailed in this appeal. 10. The case set up by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of import. Thus, in the absence of any knowledge on the part of the appellant regarding the declaration of RSP at the time of import, penalty could not have been imposed on the appellant under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the order has misconstrued the letter dated 07.06.2017, as from it has been concluded that the appellant knew that the seized watch....