2017 (7) TMI 1023 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - smuggling - gold and foreign currency - Held that - both the appellants along with the mastermind Sh. Jay Sudhirbhai Vaidya involved in the act of smuggling of goldand foreign currency totally valued at ₹ 92,01,487/- - there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant Sh. Manvendra Singh Vaghela that no evidence has been brought on record establishing his role in the activity of smuggling. Penalty upheld on appellants - in the interest of justice, the penalty imposed on Sh. Mahendra Singh Vaghela is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/ and on Shri Arpit Singh Raol is to ₹ 50,000/- - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellants.

Summary

Issues: Smuggling of gold and foreign currency, Confiscation of seized goods, Imposition of penalty, Role of the appellants, Disproportionate penalty, Reduction of penalty

Smuggling of Gold and Foreign Currency:
The case involved the smuggling of gold jewellery and foreign currency through an airport. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized the goods valued at a significant amount. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing absolute confiscation of the seized items and penalties on the individuals involved in the smuggling activity.

Confiscation and Imposition of Penalty:
Upon adjudication, the seized goods were confiscated, and penalties were imposed on the involved parties. The penalties were imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) partially allowed one appeal by reducing the penalty, while rejecting another appeal, leading to further appeals by the appellants.

Role of the Appellants:
The appellants were alleged to be involved in the smuggling activity. Arguments were presented by their advocates claiming lack of concrete evidence establishing their roles in the smuggling. However, the adjudicating authority found evidence indicating the active involvement of the appellants in the smuggling operation. The appellants' positions and actions at the airport were considered crucial in facilitating the smuggling.

Disproportionate Penalty:
The appellants argued that the penalties imposed on them were disproportionate compared to the reduced penalty imposed on the alleged mastermind behind the smuggling operation. The adjudicating authority analyzed the roles of all parties involved and concluded that the penalties on the appellants were indeed disproportionate. As a result, the penalties on the appellants were reduced in the interest of justice.

Reduction of Penalty:
In light of the findings regarding the disproportionate penalties, the penalties imposed on the appellants were reduced to a lesser amount. The reduction was justified based on the comparison of the appellants' roles with that of the alleged mastermind. The appeals were allowed to the extent of reducing the penalties on the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of smuggling, confiscation, penalty imposition, roles of the appellants, disproportionate penalties, and the subsequent reduction of penalties based on the findings of the adjudicating authority.