2005 (2) TMI 582 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of vessel and imposition of fine.
2. Imposition of penalty on the owner.
3. Confiscation of goods found in domestic premises.
4. Imposition of penalty on the individual.

Confiscation of Vessel and Imposition of Fine:
The case involved the interception of a vessel owned by two individuals, where 150 bars of gold with foreign marks were found concealed. The vessel was ordered to be confiscated and a fine of Rs. 30,000 was imposed. The tribunal upheld the confiscation, stating that the vessel was constructed with secret cavities made to conceal smuggled gold, which was found and recovered. The redemption fine was considered appropriate under the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal against the fine was dismissed, and the owner was not penalized, leading to the rejection of the owner's appeal.

Imposition of Penalty on the Owner:
The owner of the vessel was not penalized, despite the vessel being used in connection with smuggling activities. The tribunal found that the vessel had been constructed with secret cavities to conceal the smuggled gold, leading to its confiscation. The redemption fine imposed on the vessel owner was upheld, and the appeal against it was rejected.

Confiscation of Goods Found in Domestic Premises:
One of the individuals associated with the vessel was imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000 for possessing foreign goods like a color T.V., V.C.R., Rado wristwatch, and an air conditioner. However, the tribunal found that the individual had validly acquired these items, as evidenced by baggage receipts and other documents. The liberalization of import restrictions supported the lawful possession of these goods, leading to the set aside of their confiscation. The appeal against the penalty was also set aside, as the goods seized from the individual's residential premises were deemed not liable for confiscation.

Imposition of Penalty on the Individual:
The individual associated with the goods found in the domestic premises had been penalized under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the tribunal set aside the penalty, as the individual had proven the licit acquisition of the goods and the Indian currency found. The confiscation of the Indian currency was also set aside, as there was no evidence linking it to the smuggled gold. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal of this individual and rejected the appeal of the vessel owner.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the order against one individual, allowing their appeal, while rejecting the appeal of the vessel owner. The decision was made based on the findings related to the confiscation of the vessel, imposition of fines, and confiscation of goods found in domestic premises, ensuring that penalties were imposed in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962.