2024 (3) TMI 415 - AT - Customs

Seizure of Gold Bars - Confiscation - Penalty u/s 112(b) - HELD THAT - As can be seen from the Section 112(b), that mere carrying, keeping or dealing in any other manner with any goods which are liable for confiscation, would entail penalty u/s 112(b). Appellant was carrying 17 gold bars of foreign origin which is not disputed by either side and was not carrying any documentary evidence. Though as per the factual details, it may be possible to come to a conclusion that the Appellant would not be financially strong to possess the gold bar worth of Rs. 90 lakhs, still even as a person carrying this gold bars without proper documentary evidence, he would be required to be imposed with penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. However considering the fact that the Appellant is a small time gold melting person, I take the view that imposing penalty of Rs. 20 Lakhs on him when the absolutely confiscated gold bars are worth of Rs. 90 Lakhs, is very harsh on him. Only on this ground, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 20 Lakhs to Rs. 2 Lakhs. It is seen from the Appeal Papers that he has already deposited Rs. 1.5 Lakhs while filing the Appeal. After adjusting this amount, the Appellant is required to pay balance Rs. 50,000/- which should be fulfilled by him by 30th June 2024. The absolute confiscation order is not challenged. Hence, I affirm the same - Thus, Appeal stands disposed off thus.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the confiscation of seized gold bars of foreign origin and the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of Gold Bars:
The Appellant was intercepted in Kolkata carrying 17 pieces of gold of foreign origin. The Adjudicating Authority ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold bars weighing 3033.8 grams valued at Rs. 90,71,062. The Appellant did not claim ownership of the gold bars and stated they were given to him for melting purposes. The gold bars had foreign markings, and the Appellant failed to produce any licit documents for them. Despite not disputing the confiscation, the Appellant contested the penalty imposed.

Penalty Imposition:
The Appellant's representative argued that proper investigations were not conducted to locate the actual owner of the gold bars. The Appellant, a small-time gold melting person, was burdened with a penalty of Rs. 20 Lakhs, which was deemed excessive given his financial circumstances. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2 Lakhs considering the Appellant's situation. The Appellant had already deposited Rs. 1.5 Lakhs and was directed to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 50,000 by a specified date.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the absolute confiscation order as the Appellant did not challenge it. The Appeal was disposed of with the reduced penalty amount and payment deadline specified for the Appellant.