Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (11) TMI 758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e intercepted a passenger by name, Shri Sahubar Sathik Hithayadullah at the aerobridge who arrived at the Chennai Airport from Singapore as soon as he alighted from the flight. Examination of his baggage resulted in the recovery of 2300 grams of gold valued at Rs. 65,94,100/- (Rupees Sixty Five lacs Ninety four thousand One hundred) ingeniously concealed in a "Cadbury's Milk Chocolate" packet. Enquiries conducted revealed that the gold was to be handed over to an "Bureau of Immigration" staff person, who would respond to a phone call, and appear near the lift. The officers accordingly intercepted the one person Shri K. Anbalagan, the Respondent, of Bureau of Immigration as identified by Shri Sahubar Sathik Hithayadullah. Shri K. Anbalagan t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... andover the gold to an Immigration staff on his mobile Number 9003610487; that he and the Immigration staff would meet in the passenger lift from the Immigration area in the first floor to the Customs Area; and thereafter the Immigration staff would smuggle the gold out of the airport without being detected by Customs; that he was not the owner of the gold and that he did not have any foreign currency to pay as duty for the gold imported as he had intended to smuggle the same by way of handing over the gold to the immigration staff inside the airport. Thereafter, when the Customs official directed Shri Sahubar Sathik Hithayadullah to dial the Immigration staffs mobile number recovered from the person of the passenger and asked the passenger .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalized. The Order-in-Original dated 27-12-2015 has rightly imposed penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for his involvement in the entire gamut of smuggling. It is also seen that Shri Anbalagan along with the passenger had orchestrated this whole unscrupulous activity of smuggling of foreign origin gold bars into India from Singapore without declaring to Customs and without payment of duty several times in the past also. All these facts were not considered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) while passing the Order-in-Appeal. In view of the above, it is prayed that the order of the appellate authority may be set aside or such an order be passed as deemed fit. 6. A personal hearing in the cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Government has gone through the facts of the case. At the outset the Government observes that the officers of AIU have acted impulsively, and somewhat prematurely the passenger Shri Sahubar Sathik Hithayadullah was intercepted as soon as he stepped out of the Aircraft, at the aerobridge. It is therefore clear that the passenger was prevented from filing a declaration as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. As a plan/conspiracy was in existence, the officers having specific intelligence could have made the interceptions after the transfer of the gold near the lifts. 8. Further, the seizure of the gold took place at the aerobridge and according to the mahazar, the Respondent has not received the gold from the passenger .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Airport, penalty would have become applicable. The Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty under Section 112(a) on the Applicant. The Section 112(a) is reiterated below; 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, The Respondent never came in contact with the gold. It is thus evident that the Respondent has not done anything in relation to the gold that was seized. The Respondent never came in touch with the gold at all, as it was seized before he came into the conspiracy, and therefore there was no c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates