2011 (5) TMI 624 - AT - Customs

Seizure of gold bars, coins, jewellery and Indian Currency from the business premises - gold imported by two units working under SEZ and diverted to domestic tariff area - Held that - The case involves evasion of customs duty as well as contravention of Import Regulations - waiver of penalties imposed on these three appellants for admission of their appeals, waiver on collection of such amount during the pendency of the Appeals. Applications were disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold bars, coins, jewellery, and Indian currency from business premises.
2. Alleged diversion of imported gold to domestic tariff area in violation of legal provisions.
3. Failure to prove compliance with import policy and payment of customs duty.
4. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under Customs Act.
5. Discrepancy in application of penalty provisions under Customs Act.
6. Arguments for and against granting stay against penalties imposed.
7. Pre-deposited amounts by the appellants.
8. Consideration of penalties imposed and stay applications.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the seizure of gold and currency from the business premises of the appellants, allegedly imported in violation of legal provisions. The investigating agency suspected diversion of imported gold to the domestic market, leading to the seizure under the belief of smuggling.

2. The appellants were unable to prove compliance with import policies and payment of customs duty, shifting the burden of proof to them. The seizure included Indian currency believed to be proceeds from smuggled gold sales.

3. Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants, alleging violations of various Customs Act sections and trade policy provisions. While some appellants paid duties and penalties, customs authorities pursued further action leading to significant penalties being imposed.

4. Discrepancies arose regarding the application of penalty provisions under the Customs Act, with appellants arguing for a similar lenient treatment as other parties involved. The excessive penalties imposed raised concerns about fairness and proportionality.

5. After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found the penalties to be excessive and granted waivers for the appellants, citing the stay granted to other related parties. The main offense was attributed to different entities, leading to the waiver of penalties for the appellants.

6. The Tribunal granted waivers on penalties for the appellants and directed a stay on the collection of amounts during the appeal process. However, one appellant was restricted from claiming a refund until final disposal of the appeals.

7. The stay applications and miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly, with the appeals scheduled for a hearing on a specified date. The judgment aimed to address the issues of penalties, compliance, and fairness in the enforcement of customs regulations.