2002 (2) TMI 716 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The appellant contested the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case stemmed from the interception of a vehicle where 14 gold bars were found concealed in the shoes of one of the passengers. The appellant, along with another individual, was implicated in the ownership and transportation of the gold bars. Despite the lack of documentation proving legal acquisition, the gold bars were seized. Statements from the individuals involved confirmed the ownership and intention behind transporting the gold bars.

2. Subsequent Investigations and Proceedings:
Further investigations revealed that the vehicle belonged to the wife of one of the accused, adding weight to the allegations of smuggling. Proceedings were initiated against multiple individuals, including the appellant. The Commissioner's order not only confiscated the gold bars but also imposed a substantial personal penalty on the appellant, which was challenged in the appellate tribunal.

3. Arguments and Counter-arguments:
The appellant's representative argued that the case relied heavily on statements made under duress, which were later retracted. Additionally, the appellant's financial constraints were highlighted as a reason to reduce the penalty. On the contrary, the Revenue representative emphasized the consistency in the statements made by the accused, along with corroborating evidence from other sources.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the tribunal found the appellant liable for the penalty. The tribunal noted that the statements made by the appellant were voluntary and consistent, supported by corroborative evidence. Despite reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000, the tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty on the appellant due to the substantial evidence linking him to the ownership and transportation of the smuggled gold.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the imposition of a personal penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the consistent statements and corroborative evidence establishing his involvement in the smuggling of gold bars.