9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per the Order in Original, acting on spot intelligence, Petitioner, who arrived at Kolkata from Bangkok by Thai Airlines flight on 06.01.2015 was intercepted by the Officers of Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), Kolkata Customs, while he was walking through the Green Channel along with his baggage and was about to exit the Arrival Hall. On being inquired whether he was carrying any dutiable goods, gold or gold items in his baggage, he replied in the negative. Not being satisfied with his replies, Petitioner with his baggage was brought into the Air Intelligence Unit Room at the Airport. 3. In his hand baggage one multi-coloured zipper jute bag containing two medicines Sachet of "LASINA" brand was found. On cutting the two sachets it was found that they contained three rectangular cut pieces of yellow metal bars, five pieces yellow metal chains and two small pieces of uneven size yellow metal. On testing it was confirmed that they were made of 24 Karat Gold, collectively weighing 3203.900 gm. totally valued at Rs. 88,42,764/-. 4. Petitioner could not produce any licit document in support of the possession/acquisition or legal importation of the said gold. In the Indian Customs Decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nside the Multi coloured zipper jute bag further kept in the Black coloured zipper handbag that carried by the passenger reveals the noticee's knowledge about the prohibited nature of the goods. This clearly proves his guilt knowledge/ mens rea. I find Mr. Rameswar Tiwari guilty of concealing the seized gold items and non-declaring the subject seized gold items in the Indian Customs Declaration Form duly filled in by the noticee himself proves that he had tried to hoodwink the Customs authorities and evade Customs duty and hence he is liable to penal action under Section 112(a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 ." 11. The adjudicating authority relying upon the admissions made by the Petitioner in his statement under Section 108 of the Act; the fact that the Gold items were concealed in various packaging and the non-declaration of the gold items in the Indian Customs Declaration Form established that he had tried to hoodwink the Customs authorities to evade Customs Duty thus held him liable to penal action under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act. 12. The appeal memo dated 02.01.2018 filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest." 15. Any person, who, in relation to any goods, inter alia does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Act, or abets the doing of such act or omission to do such act, is liable under section 112(a) of the Act to be imposed penalty. Further under section 112(b), any person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111 is liable to be imposed penalty specified in clauses (i) to (v). Under clause (i) pertaining to goods in respect of which a prohibition is in force penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees is liable to be imposed. Admittedly, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were also not declared in the Indian Customs Declaration Form. On the other hand false declaration was made in the said Form. 19. Consequently, the gold was liable to be confiscated under section 111 of the Act. Petitioner has also conceded to the said position and has not objected to the confiscation of the said gold items. 20. Petitioner has clearly done an act that has rendered the gold liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Act and as such is liable under 112(a) of the Act. Further, Petitioner had carried the gold and had concealed the gold knowing or having reason to believe that the article he was carrying was liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Act and as such he is also liable under Section 112(b) of the Act. 21. Further, in the statement dated 07.01.2015, recorded under Section 108 of the Act, Petitioner inter-alia stated that he used to travel to Bangkok frequently for over 2 years. On his departure to Bangkok, he used to take eatables and sell them for a profit and on his return to Kolkata, he would usually bring readymade garments for which he would earn a profit of approx. Rs. 15,000 - 20,000/- per trip. He stated that on 06.01.2015, when he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. 25. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the Petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India on Amrit Foods vs. CCE 2005 (13) SCC 419 to contend that the assesse should be put to notice about the exact contravention, is misplaced. Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.06.2015 pursuant thereto the Order in Original was passed. Petitioner had never taken a stand that he was not put to notice about the exact contravention. 26. The Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, (1980) 4 SCC 669 has held that smuggling particularly of gold, into India affects the public economy and financial stability of the country. 27. For the contravention Petitioner was liable to be imposed penalty not exceeding the value of the goods. As noticed hereinabove, Petitioner brought in 24 Karat Gold, collectively weighing 3203.900 gm. totally valued at Rs. 88,42,764/-. Thus the penalty that could be imposed was upto Rs. 88,42,764/- but only a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. We find that the penalty imposed is not disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 28. In view of the above, we find no merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
