2016 (10) TMI 1077 - HC - Customs

Penalty - confiscation of gold - smuggling - repeat offender - Held that - the learned Tribunal through the impugned order dated 26-7-2016 (Annexure-G), referred to the statement(s) of the petitioner recorded on 27-12-2006 and 28-12-2006, where the carrying the gold of foreign origin was admitted by the petitioner. It was also noted that the gold was carried in a concealed manner. The petitioner being a repeat offender was also noted by the CESTAT. Thus it was observed that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for waiver of penalty and thus the imposition of penalty was upheld by the Tribunal - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Seizure of gold bars with foreign markings, confiscation under Customs Act, imposition of penalty, appeal process, repeat offender status, waiver of penalty.

Seizure of Gold Bars with Foreign Markings:
The petitioner was carrying gold bars with foreign markings while traveling on a bus. The custom team seized the gold upon receiving intelligence inputs. The gold was wrapped in five packets, and upon inspection, 15 yellow bars suspected to be of foreign origin were found. The details of the markings on the gold bars were noted, and the petitioner failed to produce any licit documents for the gold bars.

Confiscation under Customs Act and Imposition of Penalty:
Following the seizure, the Joint Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the 15 gold bars under Section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a penalty of ?2.5 lakh was imposed on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Appeal Process and Tribunal Decision:
The petitioner filed an appeal against the confiscation and penalty, but the 1st Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the matter was taken to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which upheld the imposition of the penalty based on the petitioner's admission of carrying foreign origin gold in a concealed manner and being a repeat offender.

Repeat Offender Status and Waiver of Penalty:
The CESTAT considered the petitioner as a repeat offender and found no grounds for waiving the penalty. The Tribunal's decision was based on the petitioner's admission and the manner in which the gold was carried. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the petitioner failed to make a case for the waiver of penalty.

Judgment and Dismissal of Writ Petition:
Upon examination of the penalty order and hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court found no infirmity in imposing the penalty on the repeat offender. The Court concluded that the Writ Petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly.