9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Imposition of personal penalties by the Commissioner of Customs - Confiscation of precious stones and passenger bus under the Customs Act, 1962 - Allegations of smuggling and illegal possession of precious stones - Lack of penalty imposition on the respondent Imposition of Personal Penalties: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Shillong, who had confiscated precious stones and imposed personal penalties on various individuals involved in the case. The Commissioner held that certain individuals were engaged in smuggling precious stones into India for illegal disposal in the market. Penalties ranging from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 were imposed on different individuals under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the owner of the bus and another individual were found not to be involved in the smuggling activities. The Revenue argued that despite clear findings against one of the respondents, no penalty was imposed on him, which they considered a serious error. The appellate tribunal noted the discrepancy and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to modify the order and impose penalties on the respondent based on the findings against him. Confiscation of Precious Stones and Passenger Bus: The case involved the confiscation of precious stones, a passenger bus, and other items under the Customs Act, 1962. The officers of Customs found uncut precious stones concealed in a bus, leading to further investigations and searches at various locations. The Commissioner ordered the absolute confiscation of the seized precious stones under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The passenger bus was also confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Act, with provisional release upon furnishing a security deposit and executing a bond. The adjudication order detailed the involvement of various individuals in the smuggling activities and the subsequent penalties imposed on them. Allegations of Smuggling and Illegal Possession of Precious Stones: The investigation revealed a chain of events involving different individuals in the smuggling and illegal possession of precious stones. Statements from individuals involved in transporting and concealing the stones led to searches at multiple locations, resulting in the recovery of contraband. The Commissioner found that certain individuals were complicit in smuggling activities and illegally acquiring precious stones without proper documentation. The adjudication order detailed the findings against each individual involved and the penalties imposed based on their roles in the illegal activities. Lack of Penalty Imposition on the Respondent: Despite clear findings against one of the respondents regarding his involvement in acquiring precious stones illegally, the Commissioner did not impose a penalty on him in the operative part of the order. The appellate tribunal identified this as an error in the adjudication order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for modification. The tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the findings against the respondent and impose penalties accordingly, ensuring consistency with the established facts of the case.
|
