2018 (9) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 (b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - Gold - it was alleged that the appellant is guilty of being party to the smuggling activity in respect of seized gold - Held that - For his indulgence in the facilitation of smuggling activity at the Airport. The appellant at relevant time, had been working Bird Worldwide Freight Pvt. Ltd. as he was authorized cargo handling agent at there. He has lost the job after his involvement in the smuggling activity, he has accepted his mistake and prayed for lenient view while imposing penalty. The appellant suffered a lot by loss of his job and thriving on a meager salary. It would be difficult for him to arrange such a huge amount of personal penalty. In this case the adjudicating authority has not made any distinction between the main smuggler and his accomplish i.e. the appellant - the penalty imposed appears to be too harsh and beyond the propensity of the offence committed by the appellant. Penalty imposed reduced to ₹ 4 lacs., to be adjusted out of pre deposit and balance amount to be paid in installment of ₹ 10,000/- per month till the amount of penalty imposed is recovered from the appellant - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for facilitating smuggling activity at the Airport.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) upholding the penalty imposed on him by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order was a result of a show cause notice issued to three individuals, including the appellant, for their involvement in smuggling gold without paying customs duty. The appellant, an employee of a freight services company, admitted to facilitating the smuggling activity for a monetary consideration. The adjudicating authority found him guilty and imposed a penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant, through his advocate, accepted his involvement but pleaded for a lenient view due to losing his job and financial hardship. He argued that he was not the main smuggler but only facilitated the smuggling for a small fee. The appellant's financial distress was highlighted, showing an inability to pay the full penalty amount. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the penalty, emphasizing the appellant's active role in facilitating the smuggling activity.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that while the appellant knowingly participated in smuggling, the penalty imposed was too harsh considering his circumstances. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for a penalty as a deterrent but reduced the amount to Rs. 4 lakhs, to be paid in installments due to the appellant's financial position. This decision aimed to balance the penalty with the severity of the offense while considering the appellant's ability to pay.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant and allowing payment in installments, taking into account his financial situation and role in the smuggling activity.