9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant for possession of foreign origin goods without proper permit or license. Analysis: The case involved the appellant being penalized Rs. 50,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act for possessing foreign origin goods without the required permit or license. The Customs Intelligence Unit in Coimbatore detected 123 Kgs of goods consigned to a person who did not claim them. The appellant, upon showing up, admitted that a friend had purchased the goods for him. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act due to suspicion of smuggling. The appellant's statement was recorded under Section 108, where he acknowledged the mistake of importing commercial quantity goods as unaccompanied baggage. The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the case based on the available evidence, leading to the current appeal against the adjudication order. The appellant argued that his statement recorded under Section 108 should not be held against him as it was not signed by a Customs officer. However, the authenticity of the statement was never questioned before this appeal. The appellant also claimed that he never claimed the goods, pointing out discrepancies in the passport number and address on the Air Way Bill. The consultant contended that the penalty was unjustified due to identity doubts. The consultant's arguments were rejected, emphasizing that the appellant's interest in the goods was evident from his actions, including waiving the show-cause notice and requesting early disposal due to perishable goods. As the goods were of foreign origin with no proof of lawful acquisition, confiscation was upheld, leading to a penalty under Section 112. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000 considering the appellant's decision to disclaim the goods valued at Rs. 1.30 lakhs, which would become government property. In conclusion, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act was reduced to Rs. 25,000, with the confiscation of the goods upheld due to lack of proof of lawful acquisition. The judgment highlighted the appellant's interest in the goods and the need for a reasonable penalty in such cases.
|
