2019 (11) TMI 972 - HC - Customs

Imposition of penalty - Smuggling - Gold - appellant is accused of procuring illegally imported gold, handling the same and causing transportation thereof to the ultimate recipient Kawale in Mumbai - HELD THAT - We regret to note that a high official like the Commissioner gives expression to his emotion in the order, in stead of making proper adjudication in accordance with law. In order to hold the appellant guilty, his involvement in the smuggling chain had to be stated, based on evidence or on presumption from the absence of it and, thereafter, on a proper application of the law the amount of penalty should have been considered. Regrettably, the Tribunal also fell into the same error endorsing the above finding of the Commissioner reducing the penalty. On what basis the penalty was being reduced was also required to be indicated with reasons. We find the absence of it. The entire matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Prev.) West Bengal, Kolkata to decide the case afresh in accordance with law with reasons upon giving hearing to the interested parties within six months of communication of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of gold smuggling, Reduction of penalty by Tribunal, Lack of proper adjudication

In this appeal, the appellant was accused of smuggling gold and illegally importing and handling it, with the ultimate recipient being identified as an individual in Mumbai. The appellant was charged with procuring illegally imported gold and causing its transportation to the recipient in Mumbai. The appellant appealed against a Tribunal order that reduced the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner's order was criticized for focusing solely on the appellant's lack of cooperation during the investigation, labeling him a 'fugitive,' and not providing a proper adjudication based on evidence and law. The High Court found fault with both the Commissioner and the Tribunal for not clearly stating the basis for reducing the penalty and not providing adequate reasons for their decisions. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of proper adjudication and the need for reasons to support any penalty imposition. The Court clarified that the parts of the orders concerning the appellant's alleged involvement were set aside, and the appeal was disposed of.