2019 (3) TMI 257 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - smuggling - Whether the appellant is right that the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law as it does not examine and discuss the contentions and issues of facts and law as raised and had arisen for consideration? - Held that - With regard to the facts determined by the customs authorities, and affirmed by the Tribunal, we do not detect any perversity or misappreciation, which would warrant our interference. The appellant's reply to the SCN was premised upon the contention that he was at the hospital along with an employee to obtain an appointment for his mother, and happened to be present near the said vehicle only out of curiosity. He also referred to his physical disability, presumably to contend that he was not physically capable of performing the acts attributed to him. However, the appellant did not place any material on record to support his contention that he had attended the hospital to secure a medical appointment, nor did he give any explanation as to why his personal presence, along with an employee, was required for this purpose. There is no material to show that it was impossible for him to participate along with others in the removal of a padding from a car door. In any event, it is not just his physical participation, but his presence to oversee the operation that has been found against him. In these circumstances, coupled with the fact that he operates a jewellery business, the findings of the authorities that his presence was not merely coincidental, but that he was the intended recipient of the smuggled gold, cannot be faulted. Although the Tribunal's analysis of the facts and the contentions of the parties was somewhat sketchy, this is not a case of complete non-application of mind or unreasoned acceptance of the findings rendered by the authorities. The Tribunal being the final arbiter of facts, it is no doubt vested with the duty to consider the material on record independently and render its findings upon the same. It is settled law that no judgment, even one affirming orders of the authorities or courts below, can be unreasoned. However, there is no uniform standard to determine the level of detail required, so long as the rationale of the decision is clearly discernible. When a Court or Tribunal is faced with concurrent findings of two authorities, it is not necessary to include a detailed reappraisal of the evidence in the judgment of the second appellate forum; a brief statement of the facts which have appealed to the Court and the reasons which have led it to affirm the findings of the authorities is sufficient. The present case falls into this category and it is for this reason that the impugned order of the Tribunal is, in our view, adequate. The question of law is answered in the negative, i.e. against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law as it does not examine and discuss the contentions and issues of facts and law as raised and had arisen for consideration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Tribunal's Examination of Contentions and Issues:

The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order affirming the penalty imposed for smuggling 18 kilograms of gold into India. The main contention was that the Tribunal did not properly examine and discuss the contentions and issues of facts and law raised.

Show Cause Notice and Appellant's Response:

The appellant was served with a Show Cause Notice (SCN) by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleging his involvement in smuggling gold from Nepal. The SCN detailed that the appellant was caught with others attempting to retrieve gold bars from a vehicle. The appellant admitted the allegations in his initial statement but later retracted, claiming coercion.

In his reply to the SCN, the appellant denied involvement, citing his presence at the site as a curious onlooker and his physical disability. He pointed out inconsistencies in the investigation and statements.

Order-in-Original:

The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) passed an order confiscating the gold and vehicle, and imposing a penalty of ?50 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order detailed the appellant's role in the smuggling operation, rejecting his defense of being a bystander and his claims of physical incapacity.

Commissioner (Appeal) Order:

The Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the appellant's appeal ex-parte, noting that the appellant did not appear for the personal hearing. The Appellate Commissioner found the appellant's contentions unconvincing, emphasizing the appellant's involvement as corroborated by statements of other co-accused, and upheld the penalty.

Tribunal's Analysis:

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's further appeal, noting that the gold was smuggled from Nepal and the appellant was the intended recipient. The Tribunal found the appellant's claim of being a curious bystander implausible, considering his presence at the site and his role in the jewellery business.

Arguments Before the High Court:

The appellant's counsel argued that reliance on the retracted statement and the fact that the appellant is a goldsmith were insufficient to uphold the penalty. She emphasized the lack of incriminating evidence found in follow-up investigations and no established telephonic contact with the sender of the gold. In the alternative, she urged for a reduction in the penalty.

The Revenue's counsel argued that the appellant's defenses were properly adjudicated by the authorities and the Tribunal. He emphasized the appellant's jewellery business and presence at the site as significant factors, justifying the penalty imposed.

High Court's Findings:

The High Court found no perversity or misappreciation in the facts determined by the customs authorities and affirmed by the Tribunal. The appellant's contentions of being at the hospital for a medical appointment and his physical disability were unsupported by evidence. The Court noted that the Tribunal's analysis, though somewhat sketchy, was adequate given the concurrent findings of the authorities.

Cited Judgments:

The High Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that an appellate or revisional authority need not give detailed reasons when affirming lower authorities' decisions, as long as the rationale is discernible.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's order was adequate and dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposed on the appellant. The question of law was answered in the negative, against the appellant and in favor of the Revenue.