2017 (4) TMI 319 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 (a) & (b) and u/s 114 of the CA - smuggling of gold - Held that - the involvement of the Appellant in the smuggling of the gold into India and in attempt of smuggling of Indian and foreign currency is clearly made out. Therefore, the charges against the Appellant making him liable for penalty u/s 112 (a) & (b) and u/s 114 of the CA are sustained - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) & (b) and Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) & (b) and Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order in original dated 06.09.2012 imposed penalties of ?5 lacs and ?1.00 lac, respectively. The appellant was represented by a legal advocate and an authorized representative.

2. The tribunal reviewed the facts and submissions from both parties. The impugned order dropped certain proceedings against the appellant due to lack of direct evidence of gold import. However, penalties were imposed based on third-party statements, as the appellant avoided inquiries by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) despite multiple summons. The tribunal noted circumstantial evidence indicating the appellant's involvement in gold smuggling, leading to penalties under the Customs Act.

3. The tribunal considered various statements from individuals indicating the appellant's role in possessing and dealing with imported gold. These statements, made under section 108 of the Customs Act, provided crucial evidence of the appellant's activities. The tribunal highlighted the lack of cooperation from the appellant during the investigation, emphasizing the weight given to the statements of third parties in establishing the appellant's involvement in smuggling activities.

4. Regarding the attempt to smuggle Indian and foreign currency, the tribunal cited statements confirming the appellant's abetment in the smuggling attempt. This led to the appellant being held liable for penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act for involvement in improper export activities.

5. After thorough consideration of the evidence and observations in the impugned order, the tribunal affirmed the appellant's involvement in gold smuggling and currency export attempts. Consequently, the penalties under Sections 112(a) & (b) and Section 114 of the Customs Act were upheld, with no grounds to interfere with the impugned order against the appellant.

6. The tribunal sustained the impugned order against the appellant and dismissed the appeal as lacking merit. The judgment was pronounced on 05.04.2017.