Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 641 - AT - CustomsSmuggling of gold bars - concealment of gold bars in the baggage - non-declaration of value - concealment of gold bars in order to avoid duty - confiscation of gold bars - imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) and (b) and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 - The plea to reduce the penalty u/s 112 and to set aside the penalty u/s 114AA on the ground that the appellant is a poor, uneducated and unemployed labour who has gone to Riyadh with a purpose of earning money for improving the financial condition of his family justified? - Held that: - The gold in question was purchased by the appellant and was brought to India for the purpose of marriage of his sister. The evidences leading to the facts that marriage ceremony was to take place in near future stands placed on record by him. Though the fact is that he violated the law of the land by trying to smuggle gold into the land, I am of the view that penalties imposed upon him needs some interference on account of the fact that the gold in question stands absolutely confiscated. Reliance placed in the decision of the case Zainuddin Vs. CCE Hyderabad [2015 (11) TMI 32 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. Penalties u/s 112 reduced on account of the fact of absolute confiscation of the goods and penalty u/s 114AA set aside in as much as there cannot be said to have been any short levy on account of absolute confiscation. As such by following the said decision of the Tribunal, penalty imposed u/s 112(a) and (b) reduced to ₹ 1 lakh and penalty imposed u/s 114AA set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|