2018 (7) TMI 790 - AT - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - penalty - Smuggling - Diamonds - Baggage Rules - Held that - Even though, the advocates have disputed that only on the basis of oral evidences, the allegation of act of smuggling involving the appellants cannot be confirmed. However, they could not produce any contrary evidences nor request for cross examination of these witnesses was made. Therefore, the findings of the Ld. Commissioner on the basis of oral evidences which remain unchallenged and not retracted cannot be assailed and admissible evidence - confiscation upheld. The appellant Sh. Pradeep Bhai Jagda and Sh. Karsan Naran Keshwala are actively involved in the smuggling of the rough diamonds seized by the customs on 04.03.2012. consequnelty, imposition of penalty on them under Section 112(a) and (b), respectively sustainable however, the quantum of penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Smuggling of rough diamonds, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, involvement of appellants, reduction of penalty amount.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against an order-in-original regarding the smuggling of rough diamonds. The appellant arrived at the airport from Sharjaha with undeclared rough diamonds concealed in a vacuum cleaner. The diamonds were seized, valued, and penalties were imposed under the Customs Act. The appellant argued lack of concrete evidence against him and excessive penalty imposition. Another appellant claimed to be unaware of the concealed diamonds and challenged the penalty amount. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including statements and submissions. It noted the involvement of both appellants in the smuggling operation based on unchallenged oral evidence. The Tribunal upheld the penalties but reduced the amounts considering the circumstances, finding the penalties excessive. The modified order reduced the penalties imposed on both appellants, allowing the appeals partially.

This judgment addressed issues related to smuggling, penalty imposition under the Customs Act, the involvement of the appellants in the smuggling operation, and the subsequent reduction of penalty amounts. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including statements and submissions, to determine the appellants' roles in the smuggling of rough diamonds. Despite challenges to the evidence, the Tribunal found the oral evidence unchallenged and upheld the penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal deemed the original penalty amounts excessive and reduced them in the interest of justice. The judgment highlighted the need for concrete evidence in such cases and the importance of fair penalty imposition based on the level of involvement in the illegal activity.