2024 (2) TMI 1387 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling of foreign origin cigarette of Benson and Hedges brand into the country - appellant failed to remain present and plead the case - HELD THAT - The sufficient opportunities had been given to the appellant, and more specifically on 10.05.2022, 15.03.2023, 27.07.2023 and 18.12.2023 for the appellant to be present and plead his case. Even today, none had appeared for the appellant. Thus, it is very clear that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the legal remedy despite he being aware of the proceedings before the Tribunal as they had appeared earlier on two occasions before the Tribunal. Hence, the case is taken up on merits of the case and with the consent provided by the learned AR for the Revenue. This is a case of smuggling of foreign origin cigarettes along with cosmetics totally valued at Rs. 1,10,77,667/- and the appellant was one of the noticee for having participated in the said smuggling activity. It is also found that the personal hearing opportunities have been given by the original authority to the appellant on 20.08.2018, 22.11.2018 and 3.12.2018 and decided the issue on merits. In view of the detailed examination of the case, role played by the appellant and the decision taken by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, there are no grounds for entertaining the appeal of the appellant for setting aside the impugned order. The impugned order is upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling foreign origin cigarettes.

Summary:
1. The appellant, Shri Ashok Tahilram Sadarangani, filed an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite multiple opportunities for hearings, the appellant did not appear, leading to a risk of dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedures) Rules, 1982.

2. The case involved an attempt to smuggle foreign origin cigarettes into the country, intercepted by Customs Officers. The appellant was issued a show-cause notice for imposition of penalty, which was subsequently adjudicated, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The case was remanded for fresh determination due to insufficient reasons for the penalty, and after further adjudication, the penalty was maintained.

3. The appellant was given ample opportunities for hearings and cross-examination of relevant persons. Despite the opportunities provided on various dates, the appellant did not appear, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the legal remedy. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the case on its merits with the consent of the Revenue's Authorized Representative.

4. The appellant was one of the noticees involved in the smuggling activity, which included foreign origin cigarettes and cosmetics. The original authority provided personal hearing opportunities to the appellant and decided the issue on merits. After a detailed examination, the Tribunal found no grounds to entertain the appeal and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.