2024 (2) TMI 443 - AT - Customs

Quantum of penalty - Absolute confiscation - Smuggling of Gold Bars - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT - It is seen that in many cases, the Appellants were seen to be repeated offenders. Each of them has carried more than 30 pieces of gold bars with them without proper documents knowing fully well that these gold bars are liable to be confiscated. Further we see force in the arguments of the Learned AR that since no proper documents were available for these gold bars, they are to be categorized as prohibited goods. Hence, the submission of the Learned Counsel that penalty should be either equivalent to 10% of the quantified duty amount or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is higher, is rejected. Quantum of penalties imposed - HELD THAT - It is seen that two other Noticees have approached the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, which after going through the factual details has remanded the matter back the Tribunal to re-quantify the penalties imposed on them - it is noted that the present Appellants are not the main noticees, since they were neither the buyers nor sellers of these gold bars but were mere carriers probably getting a few thousand rupees for carrying these gold bars from one place to another - it is also taken into account that they may not be financially strong and hence take a more humane approach in quantifying the penalties on them. Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Seizure and confiscation of gold bars without proper documents, imposition of penalties on seven appellants, re-quantification of penalties based on previous court orders.

Seizure and Confiscation of Gold Bars:
- Gold bars valued at Rs. 10,07,00,000 were seized from the possession of seven appellants without proper documents.
- Adjudicating Authority confiscated the gold bars and imposed penalties on the appellants.

Re-Quantification of Penalties:
- Main noticee filed a writ petition challenging the penalty imposed, which was set aside by the High Court and remanded back to the Tribunal for re-quantification.
- Appellants argued that penalties imposed were too high, citing their roles as carriers and financial constraints.
- Tribunal considered the value of seized gold bars and rejected the argument that penalties should be based on a percentage of quantified duty amount or a fixed sum.
- Tribunal re-quantified penalties for the appellants, taking a more humane approach due to their roles as carriers and financial status.

Judicial Analysis:
- Tribunal noted that appellants were repeat offenders carrying gold bars without proper documents, categorized as prohibited goods.
- Two other noticees had their penalties remanded back to the Tribunal for re-quantification.
- Appellants were carriers, not buyers or sellers, and likely received minimal compensation for their roles.
- Penalties were re-quantified for each appellant based on a more humane approach considering their circumstances.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA addressed the issues of seizure and confiscation of gold bars without proper documents, imposition of penalties on the appellants, and re-quantification of penalties based on previous court orders. The Tribunal considered the value of the seized gold bars, the roles of the appellants as carriers, and their financial status in re-quantifying the penalties to a more reasonable amount. The decision provided a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances surrounding the case and applied a humane approach in determining the penalties for the appellants involved.