1987 (8) TMI 261 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.
2. Financial capacity consideration in pre-deposit.
3. Double punishment for the same offense.
4. Legality of penalty exceeding the value of seized goods.
5. Evidence against the appellant Suresh.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with the Pre-Deposit Requirement:
The appellants challenged the Board's order requiring them to deposit Rs. 10,000 each, arguing that the order was not capable of compliance due to a typographical error in the date. The Tribunal found this contention untenable, clarifying that the correct date for the deposit was 20.4.1981, not 20.3.1981, as evidenced by the context of the order and the presence of the appellants' advocate during the hearing. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the claim that the Board's order was not implementable.

2. Financial Capacity Consideration in Pre-Deposit:
The appellants argued that the Board did not consider their financial capacities when directing each to deposit Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal found no merit in this contention, noting that the Board had exercised discretion and reduced the deposit amount after hearing the appellants' advocate, who had argued that the appellants were of poor means. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence provided by the appellants regarding their financial status and upheld the Board's decision as reasonable and not harsh.

3. Double Punishment for the Same Offense:
The appellant Shri B.A. Gandhi contended that he was punished twice for the same offense, rendering the order dated 28.8.1980 a nullity. The Tribunal examined the two show cause notices and found they related to different offenses. The first notice pertained to the seizure of contraband goods from a truck, while the second involved other contraband goods and transactions in smuggled goods worth Rs. 14 lakhs. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not penalized twice for the same offense and rejected the contention that the adjudication order was a nullity.

4. Legality of Penalty Exceeding the Value of Seized Goods:
The appellants argued that the penalty imposed exceeded five times the value of the seized goods, which was Rs. 2360. The Tribunal found this submission factually incorrect, noting that the Collector's order recorded violations involving goods valued at Rs. 17,950 and Rs. 7,060, among others. Thus, the penalty did not exceed the legal limit, and the Tribunal rejected this contention.

5. Evidence Against the Appellant Suresh:
The appellants contended that there was no evidence against Suresh and that the guilt conclusion was based solely on his relationship as a brother-in-law to another appellant. The Tribunal clarified that its role was to review the correctness of the Board's order, not to reassess the merits of the case. The Tribunal noted that the Board had provided sufficient time and opportunity for the appellants to comply with the deposit requirement and found no procedural or legal infirmity in the Board's order. Consequently, the Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the Board's decision and rejected the appeals.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Board's order, rejecting all the appellants' contentions. The appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirements, and the Tribunal found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants' advocate.