9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing Registration No. WB70J4837 near Bankim Chandra Road, Hakimpara, Siliguri. Upon interception of the said vehicle, it was found that one Shri Rajesh Bhagat was driving the said vehicle. On enquiry, it was found that he was carrying two pieces of gold bars of foreign origin, weighing 1000 grams each. Since Shri Rajesh Bhagat was not having any licit documents in his possession for legal purchase of the said gold bars, the Officers were of the view that the said gold bars had been smuggled into India from China via the Indo-Bhutan border at Jaigaon. During further verification with Shri. Rajesh Bhagat, it was revealed that the said bars were to be delivered to one Shri Ashish Lakhotia of Hakimpara, Siliguri. 2.1. Thereafter, the Officers conducted a thorough search of the premises of Shri Ashish Lakhotia whereby they recovered Indian Currency collectively worth Rs.39,83,000/-, which was alleged to have been kept for the purchase of the said foreign origin gold bars from Shri Rajesh Bhagat. Accordingly, the said Indian Currency amounting to Rs.39,83,000/- recovered from the residential premises of Shri Ashish Lakhotia was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . adjudicating authority that the statement given by him was involuntary in nature. Thus, the appellant submits that the said statement has lost its evidentiary value and hence the same cannot be used against him. Subsequently, the ld. adjudicating authority passed the Order-in-Original No. Order-in-Original No.05/ADC(P)/CUS/WB/20-21 dated 21.02.2020 wherein he has inter alia imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on the appellant herein under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act. 6. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant in the Order-in-Original dated 21.02.2020. 6.1. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty on him, the appellant has filed this appeal. 7. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the present case, neither was the gold recovered from his possession nor had he claimed ownership of the said gold. It is pointed out that except the statement of the co-noticee namely, Shri Ashish Lakhotia, there is no other evidence to implicate the appellant in this case. It is further submitted that Shri Ashish Lakhotia, during the course of his cross examination before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.01.2025. The relevant part of the said decision are reproduced below: "6. We find that 58 pieces of gold biscuits and bars and about half a piece of biscuit having a total weight of 10.54855 kgs. collectively valued at Rs.2,85,86,569/- was seized from Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav on 16.06.2015.It is alleged that a part of the smuggled gold was supposed to be sold to Shri Gagan Karel, as per the statement recorded from Shri Pawan Prasad. We observe that except the statement dated 16.06.2015 of Shri Pawan Prasad, there is no other evidence available on record to implicate the Appellant in the alleged offence. Since the statements of Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav are the only evidences against the Appellant, an opportunity for cross-examining them should have been granted to the Appellant, to verify the claims made by the said persons in their respective statements. In the present case, the ld. adjudicating authority has given only one opportunity of cross-examination of Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav on 19.12.2016 and on the said date, both of them had not appeared. The ld. adjudicating authority has not given any further opportunity to cross-examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher : Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (8) of section 28 and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent. of the penalty so determined;] (iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty [not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
