TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty has to be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs where the value of goods came to be confiscated does not exceed ₹ 5 Lakhs and under Clause (c) same shall be adjudicated by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs where the value of the goods confiscated would not exceed ₹ 50,000/-. Undisputedly, in the instant case, value of goods was more than ₹ 5 lakhs and as per the appraisal value, who had appraised the gold bar so confiscated and had certified the weight at 2566.05 grams of 24 carot gold of foreign origin he had valued at ₹ 77,87,962/-. Before levy of penalty show cause notice came to be issued by Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lligence, Mangalore (for short DRI ) that gold was being smuggled by one Sri. Abdul Khader an Indian citizen traveling from Dubai to Mumbai and had concealed contraband gold under his seat No.12A and two employees of Spicejet namely, Sri.Mohammad Anif and Sri. Odiyanda Ayyappa Muddaiah. DRI Officers had assisted after having identified the said employees had retrieved the gold hidden in the seat which was concealed in 2 deftly concealed packets inside the backrest cushion of said seat on disembarkment of all the passengers and said package came to be seized under panchas. Proceedings came to be initiated against them and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation statements of said two (2) persons under Section 108 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to the appellant herein order dated 28.05.2018 came to be passed by appellate authority dismissing the appeal by upholding the order in original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. Further appeal to the CESTAT did not yield any fruitful result to the appellant and second appeal also came to be dismissed vide Final Order No.20619/2019 dated 06.08.2019. Hence, this appeal contending interalia that based on the statements of co-employees penalty has been levied and as such statements recorded under the Customs Act could not have been relied upon for passing the impugned order in original and the entire procedure adopted by the original authority is erroneous. 5. Sri. Dakshina Murthy, learned counsel appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) without limit, by a [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] or a [Joint Commissioner of Customs]; (b) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed [five lakh] rupees, by an [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs]; (c) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed [fifty thousand] rupees, by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs. 8. A plain reading of above provision would indicate that in every case under the said Chapter i.e., Chapter XIV under which anything is liable to be confiscated or any person is liable to be imposed with the penalty has to be adjudicated under Clause ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in any Chapter under the Act other than Chapter XIV it would mean and include Additional Commissioner of Customs also. In the instant case, order under Section 122 having been passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs under Chapter XIV, said authority would fall within the definition of Section 2(8) and as such order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs cannot be faulted or in other words, contentions raised by Sri.Dakshina Murthy, learned counsel appearing for appellant cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 10. Insofar as, merits of the case is concerned, it would clearly emerge from the orders of the original authority as affirmed by the appellate authority the statement of appellant recorded under Section 108 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatements made before the Customs Officer under Section 108, they have clearly admitted their involvement in smuggling activity on payment of remuneration. The versions of the appellants given before the Customs Officer were also proved from their WhatsApp communication. 12. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal for being admitted, adjudicated and answered. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: JUDGMENT (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) Order dated 06.08.2019 passed by CESTAT in Final Order No.20619/2019 stands affirmed. (iii) No order as to costs. In view of appeal having been dismissed, I.A.No.1/2020 for stay does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
