9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 416 - AT - CustomsPenalty on daily wager - confiscation of the seized Gold - HELD THAT - We find that in this case, it is a fact on record that the appellant was carrying a contraband goods, which are notified items in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant has failed to show the licit documents for possession of the same. Thus, the gold has rightly absolutely confiscated and the same has not been claimed by the appellant being owner of the same. Further, it is a fact on record that the appellant is a poor fellow, who is a daily wager and has come to the city at Kolkata for earning purposes. Taking into account the financial condition of the appellant, although the appellant is liable to be penalized, but the quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the appeal is disposed off.
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposition u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Summary: The case involved the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant. The appellant was found carrying contraband goods, specifically two pieces of "Yellow Metal" believed to be Gold, without possessing any licit documents for the same. The appellant claimed innocence, stating that he was a daily wager and was unaware of the contents of the packet he was carrying. After completion of adjudication proceedings, the goods were confiscated, and a penalty of Rs.6.00 lakhs was imposed on the appellant. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, as he was only paid to deliver packets without knowledge of their contents. The Revenue argued in favor of upholding the penalty. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellant was indeed carrying contraband goods without proper documentation. The confiscated gold was not claimed by the appellant. Considering the appellant's financial situation as a daily wager, the penalty was reduced from Rs.6.00 lakhs to Rs.25,000. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, with the penalty amount reduced due to the appellant's financial circumstances.
|
