9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against the penalty imposed under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the recovery of foreign gold from the appellant's possession. Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the recovery of foreign gold from his possession, arguing that the case was fabricated by the railway police and Customs authorities. However, the evidence presented by railway officials and the mahazar attested by witnesses established the recovery. The appellant's failure to protest against the seizure raised doubts about his claims, shifting the burden of proof onto him. 2. The Department relied on circumstantial evidence, including the mahazar and witness testimonies, to establish the appellant's involvement with the seized gold. Despite the appellant's denial, his conduct and lack of protest after multiple opportunities to provide a statement weakened his defense. The Department successfully discharged its burden through various circumstances and legal presumptions. 3. The appellant raised concerns about the cross-examination of witnesses and cited legal precedents to challenge the penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and rejected the applicability of cited rulings to the present case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of contemporaneous documents like the mahazar in proving recovery of incriminating articles. 4. In light of the evidence and circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. Considering the substantial value of the seized gold, the Tribunal deemed the penalty of &8377;10,000 justified and not excessive. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit based on the established facts and legal principles.
|
