9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against orders under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act; Recovery of fabrics and gold; Imposition of penalties on both appellants; Involvement of both appellants in possession of contraband items; Appeal challenging penalties imposed under Customs Act; Quantum of penalties imposed on each appellant; Liability of each appellant under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two appeals arising from a common incident but different orders passed by the Collector under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal decided to hear both appeals together instead of remanding the matter back to the Collector (Appeals). The incident involved a search where fabrics and gold were recovered from the business-cum-residential premises of the appellants. The fabrics were seized under the belief of contravention of Customs Act provisions, and the gold was attached under both Gold (Control) Act and Customs Act. Show cause notices were issued, leading to the imposition of penalties on both appellants under the respective Acts. The advocate for the appellants argued that only the female appellant was responsible for the contravention, while the involvement of the male appellant was unwarranted. He contended that there was no evidence to implicate the male appellant. The female appellant admitted to purchasing the gold but claimed no breach of laws. The advocate sought leniency in penalties citing precedents. The Respondent argued that both appellants were knowingly involved in possessing contraband items, supported by the proximity of the gold and fabrics in the premises. The judgment analyzed the case against each appellant separately. The female appellant failed to prove the licit import of the seized items, leading to proper confiscation and imposition of penalties. However, considering her illiteracy and limited involvement, the Tribunal reduced her penalty amount. The male appellant claimed ignorance about the possession of items, and the judgment found insufficient evidence to hold him accountable for acquiring the contraband. While he was held liable for penalties under the Customs Act, the amount was reduced due to excessive imposition. The penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was set aside for the male appellant due to lack of evidence against him. In conclusion, the penalties imposed on both appellants under the Customs Act were modified, reducing the amounts. The penalty imposed on the male appellant under the Gold (Control) Act was set aside. The orders appealed against were confirmed, and consequential reliefs were directed to follow.
|
