2018 (9) TMI 594 - HC - Customs

Quantum of penalty - Smuggling - Gold Bars - Confiscation - penalty - Held that - There are no question of law arising in the present matter. The adjudicating authority was justified in recording a finding on available material about the involvement of the appellant with other accused and also taking note of the fact that charge sheet against him was also filed in the Court of Economic Offences, Jaipur and considering that he visited Dubai around the relevant time on as many as four occasions. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) imposed penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs on the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was dismissed by the Tribunal on non-deposition. This Court restored the appeal confining the matter to only penalty part. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise by his order dated 27.9.2016, however, imposed the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs. The Tribunal by his order dated 7.9.2017, however, reduced the same to ₹ 1 lakh. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
- Seizure and confiscation of gold bars smuggled from Dubai to India.
- Imposition of penalty of ?2 lakhs on the appellant.
- Reduction of penalty from ?2 lakhs to ?1 lakh by the Tribunal.
- Question of law regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Justification of penalty imposition based on available material and involvement of the appellant with other accused.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant from ?2 lakhs to ?1 lakh. The incident revolved around the seizure and confiscation of gold bars smuggled from Dubai to India, concealed in a packet underneath a seat at Jaipur International Airport. The appellant was found to be involved in smuggling activities along with other individuals, as revealed during the investigation. The appellant's involvement was further substantiated by his multiple visits to Dubai and connections with known smugglers. The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal upheld the penalty based on the evidence of involvement with third parties and circumstantial evidence.

The key question of law in the appeal was whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified. The appellant's defense centered around being a student who visited Dubai for job opportunities facilitated by his father-in-law, denying direct involvement in smuggling activities. However, the authorities found sufficient evidence to link the appellant to the smuggling operation, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) initially imposed a penalty of ?2 lakhs, which was later reduced to ?1 lakh by the Tribunal.

Upon review, the High Court found no legal question arising from the matter. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty to ?1 lakh, dismissing the appeal. The judgment emphasized the justification of the penalty based on the available evidence of the appellant's involvement with other accused individuals and his repeated visits to Dubai during the relevant period. The Court concluded that the order reducing the penalty was not flawed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.