TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te confiscation - Smuggling of Gold Bars - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT:- It is seen that in many cases, the Appellants were seen to be repeated offenders. Each of them has carried more than 30 pieces of gold bars with them without proper documents knowing fully well that these gold bars are liable to be confiscated. Further we see force in the arguments of the Learned AR that since no proper documents were available for these gold bars, they are to be categorized as prohibited goods. Hence, the submission of the Learned Counsel that penalty should be either equivalent to 10% of the quantified duty amount or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is higher, is rejected. Quantum of penalties imposed - HELD THAT:- It is seen that two other Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from their possession without proper documents. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority absolutely confiscated the gold bars with a value of Rs. 10,07,00,000/- and imposed the following penalties on the present seven Appellants:- SI No. Appellant Penalty (Rs.) 1. Shri Liton Seikh 8,00,000/- 2. Jahangir Mondal 10,00,000/- 3. Shri Nirupam Dey 12,50,000/- 4. Shri Basudeb Adhikary 20,00,000/- 5. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this Bench vide Final Order No. 76911- 76916/2016 dated 17/12/2019. She submits that the Tribunal has held that when the duty evaded is not quantified, the penalty cannot be imposed. The Learned Counsel submits that the penalty can be imposed to the maximum extent of 10% of the duty evaded or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is higher. In the present case, the duty was not quantified, the maximum penalty which can be imposed against these Appellants can at best be to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only. Therefore, she submits that the penalty may be reduced to 5,000/- each in respect of all the seven Appellants. 7. The Learned AR submits that since the goods were moving without any proper documents and gold with a value of Rs.10,07,00,000/- was sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy the penalties imposed on them. 11. Further we also take note that the present Appellants are not the main noticees, since they were neither the buyers nor sellers of these gold bars but were mere carriers probably getting a few thousand rupees for carrying these gold bars from one place to another. We are also taking into account that they may not be financially strong and hence take a more humane approach in quantifying the penalties on them. After holding that they are liable for penalties under Section 112(b)(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, we re-quantify their penalties as under:- SI No. Appellant Penalty (Rs.) Re-quantified penalty 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
