2018 (5) TMI 927 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - case of appellant is that Revenue has miserably failed to prove that the said gold articles were given by Shri Sriramdasu Rosa Prasad Rao to Raparthi Durga Rao - Held that - Shri Raparthi Durga Rao has specifically in his statement recorded that he was given ₹ 4,500/- for booking the flight tickets and was promised Rs l0,000/- for delivering the contraband goods in Visakhapatnam outside the Airport and he also identified Shri Raparthi Durga Rao as to the person who had given the gold to him travelling in the same flight - In the absence of any retraction of the statement, any defence put forth by the learned counsel will not carry their any further - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging penalties imposed by adjudicating authority and upheld by 1st Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals challenging penalties imposed by authorities. The main issue was whether the penalties were correctly imposed. The appellant was intercepted at the customs gate while trying to exit through the green channel on an international flight. Gold jewelry of foreign origin was found in his possession. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties, which were upheld by the 1st Appellate Authority. The appellant argued that the goods were not smuggled as per the Customs Act's definition of smuggling, and the department failed to prove the goods were of foreign origin. The appellant also claimed that the penalties and confiscation were unjustified. The department presented statements from the individuals involved admitting to smuggling the goods for profit, which were not retracted. The 1st Appellate Authority found that the appellants had connived to smuggle the goods into India without paying customs duty. The judge noted that the statements were not retracted and upheld the lower authorities' decisions, stating that the penalties and confiscation were justified based on the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the judge found that the impugned order of the 1st Appellate Authority was correct and legal, requiring no interference. The confiscation of the goods was deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appeals were rejected, and the order was pronounced in open court on the specified date.