2016 (11) TMI 674 - AT - Customs

Smuggling of gold - confiscation of goods - quantum of redemption fine and personal penalty imposed upon the appellant, excessive and exorbitant - Held that - the impugned order does not deal with the role of two noticees, viz. Karim D. Hajiali and Taherbhai insofar as the charges against the said persons have neither been confirmed nor dropped. To that extent, the impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. The Revenue has pointed out various aspects in case of Bharat Chudasama and Bhupendra Chudasama, which have not been specifically examined in the impugned order. We find merit in this submission and accordingly we set aside the order and remand the case for de novo consideration by the Commissioner - appeal disposed off - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues: Alleged smuggling of gold, confiscation of gold and foreign currency, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, maintainability of Revenue's appeal, role of other noticees, excessive redemption fine and penalty, failure to establish interception location, liberalized policy of Government, absolute confiscation of gold, inadequacy of impugned order, remand for de novo consideration.

Analysis:
1. Alleged Smuggling of Gold and Confiscation: The appellants were intercepted at the Mumbai airport carrying gold bars and foreign currency. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the gold bars and foreign currency under relevant customs acts. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of gold but reduced the redemption fine for each appellant. The absolute confiscation of foreign currency was set aside, and the penalty imposed was also reduced.

2. Maintainability of Revenue's Appeal: Revenue filed an appeal after the Tribunal's order on the appellants' appeal was issued. The Tribunal held that Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it was filed after the disposal of the appellants' appeal, and the order had already merged with the final order.

3. Role of Other Noticees: The Tribunal found that the appeal filed by Revenue was infructuous concerning other noticees as the Commissioner's order did not discuss their roles or confirm/drop the charges against them.

4. Excessive Redemption Fine and Penalty: The appellants challenged the redemption fine and penalty as excessive, arguing they had produced invoices for the seized items and that the panchas' testimony was unreliable. They claimed the interception location was before the customs declaration point and that the foreign currency was for duty payment.

5. Liberalized Policy and Absolute Confiscation: Revenue argued that the gold should have been absolutely confiscated based on previous judgments. They contested the Commissioner's assertion regarding redemption of concealed gold under the liberalized policy.

6. Inadequacy of Impugned Order and Remand: The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not address the role of certain noticees and other specific aspects related to the appellants. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the case was remanded for de novo consideration by the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by remanding the case for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a more detailed examination of the roles and circumstances involved in the alleged smuggling case.