9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of penalty amounts based on the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Act. Analysis: The Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties on the applicants for attempting to smuggle goods into India, including gold bars, gold jewelry, and cell phones, claimed to be part of a diplomatic consignment. The penalties were based on the antecedents of the applicants rather than their direct involvement with the seized goods. The appellants argued that the findings of attempted smuggling were unfounded as they had not acquired physical possession of the goods or dealt with them in any manner to attract penalties under Section 112 of the Act. Additionally, the appellants highlighted financial hardships, stating that some were no longer employed by the High Commission and had meager incomes for survival. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the applications, citing circumstantial evidence gathered by the department as sufficient to hold the applicants liable for penalties under Section 112. However, upon careful examination, the Tribunal found that the findings against the appellants were primarily based on their antecedents rather than direct involvement with the confiscated goods. Section 112 requires a nexus between the offender and the goods, which was not established in this case. The appellants seemed to have a prima facie case as no evidence showed their physical possession or dealing with the goods. The Tribunal also noted that the adjudication against other noticees being kept pending did not affect the case, as all noticees faced similar allegations of joint smuggling. Considering the lack of evidence linking the appellants directly to the seized goods and the plea of financial hardships, the Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amounts. The decision was based on the absence of a nexus between the appellants and the confiscated goods under Section 112 of the Customs Act, despite the allegations of attempted smuggling.
|
