9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1130 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 112, 114, 114A, 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - it is alleged that the appellant has purchase the smuggled gold through Sh. Ravinder Suri with illicit means - existence of corroborative evidences or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the records, it is coming on that the two ladies who were visiting India from Krgyzthan have stated that they have brought gold India through illicit means and the same was sold to one Shri Ravinder Suri, who in turn sold the gold to the appellant but neither the appellant has admitted that he have purchased the gold from Sh. Ravinder Suri nor any other corroborative evidence is available on record to prove that the appellant has purchased the smuggled gold as alleged. In that circumstances, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. Therefore, the impugned order qua imposing penalty on the appellant is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the imposition of penalty under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 based on allegations of purchasing smuggled gold. Summary: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Customs Act and FEMA The appellant appealed against the penalty imposed under Sections 112, 114, 114A, 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The case involved two ladies from Kyrgyzstan who admitted to bringing gold into India through illicit means and selling it to Shri Ravinder Suri, who allegedly sold it to the appellant. However, the appellant denied purchasing the gold from Sh. Ravinder Suri, and no corroborative evidence was found to support the allegation. The Tribunal held that no penalty could be imposed on the appellant due to lack of evidence, and accordingly set aside the penalty. Decision: The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had purchased smuggled gold as alleged. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant under the Customs Act and FEMA was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits.
|
