9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling diamonds and foreign currency. Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty: The appellant contested the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 114(i) & (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000. The appellant did not claim ownership of the diamonds and foreign currency seized from an Indian Airlines flight arriving from Sharjah. 2. Facts of the Case: The case involved the interception of an individual at an airport with concealed screwdriver tool bits meant for opening aircraft panels, leading to the discovery of semi-polished diamonds and foreign currency hidden in the aircraft's toilet panels. Statements from individuals involved indicated a conspiracy to smuggle these items out of India. 3. Department's View: The Customs department alleged that the appellant, along with others, was part of a smuggling gang conspiring to transport diamonds and foreign currency out of India. Show cause notices were issued for confiscation of the goods and penal action under relevant sections of the Customs Act. 4. Adjudication: The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the seized items and imposed penalties on the appellant and another individual, while refraining from confiscating the aircraft used for concealment. The appellant challenged only the penalty imposed on him. 5. Judgment: The Tribunal noted that the appellant, as a ground engineer, had access to restricted areas of the aircraft, facilitating the concealment of contraband for retrieval by accomplices. Witness statements and evidence indicated the appellant's involvement in the smuggling operation. The Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced it to Rs. 10,00,000 considering the circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the penalty on the appellant for attempting to smuggle diamonds out of India, as prohibited under relevant laws. The decision was based on substantial evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling operation, despite attempts to retract statements. The penalty amount was reduced based on the case's specifics, acknowledging the appellant's involvement but adjusting the penalty amount accordingly.
|
