9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1728 - HC - CustomsImposition of excessive nature of penalty imposed - Smuggling - Gold - contraband item - HELD THAT - What is apparent is that the appellants were carriers of the contraband; it is equally matter of record that the gold was confiscated and subsequently auctioned. The duty amounts were realised in those proceedings. The penalty imposed upon them, needs to be reduced in the interest of justice - Accordingly, penalty imposed upon Keshav Dev, Prashant Modi, Mukesh Batham are hereby reduced to ₹ 75,000/- each and in the case of Lucky Raikwar the penalty amount is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The pre-deposits made by each of them, as a requirement of the hearing of their appeals before the CESTAT, shall be duly adjusted in the recovery of the amounts; it is clarified that only the balance amounts, if any, need to be paid by them. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Notice served to the parties. 2. Excessive penalty imposed on appellants caught with gold. 3. Reduction of penalty amounts for appellants based on circumstances. 4. Adjustment of pre-deposits made by the appellants. Issue 1: The High Court served notice to the parties, and the Senior Standing Counsel accepted the notice, indicating proper communication and acknowledgment in the legal proceedings. Issue 2: The appellants were caught carrying varying quantities of gold, leading to confiscation and imposition of penalties. The penalty amounts were reduced on appeal by the CESTAT. The Court noted that the appellants were carriers of the contraband, and the gold was confiscated and auctioned, with duty amounts realized during the proceedings. Issue 3: Considering the circumstances of the appellants, the Court found the penalties imposed to be excessive. In the interest of justice, the Court reduced the penalty amounts for each appellant. The penalties for Keshav Dev, Prashant Modi, and Mukesh Batham were reduced to ?75,000 each, while Lucky Raikwar's penalty was reduced to ?1,00,000. The Court clarified that the pre-deposits made by the appellants would be adjusted in the recovery process, with only the balance amounts, if any, needing to be paid by them. Issue 4: The Court allowed the appeals on the revised penalty terms and directed the adjustment of pre-deposits made by the appellants, ensuring clarity on the payment process for the reduced penalty amounts.
|
