1991 (10) TMI 158 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of a composite penalty under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act without specifying the amount for each enactment.
2. Allegations against the appellants regarding abetting the commission of an offense related to the seizure of gold ornaments and primary gold.
3. Lack of evidence against the appellants regarding knowledge of the contents of the seized packets.
4. Setting aside the impugned order due to technical infirmity and remitting the appeals for re-adjudication.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to the imposition of a composite penalty on the appellants under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act without specifying the amount for each enactment. The appellants were penalized jointly for contravention under both acts without a clear apportionment of the penalty amount. The tribunal found such a composite penalty legally unsustainable, emphasizing the need for specific apportionment to facilitate proper adjudication. The order was set aside on this ground, allowing the appellants to raise contentions during re-adjudication.

The case involved allegations against the appellants for abetting an offense related to the seizure of gold ornaments and primary gold. The appellants, who operated a courier service, were accused of being privy to the offense by transporting packets containing the illegal items. However, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that there was no concrete evidence implicating them and that the penalty was imposed solely based on suspicion. The tribunal did not delve into the merits of the allegations but focused on the technical infirmity in the order, leading to its setting aside for re-adjudication.

Regarding the lack of evidence against the appellants regarding their knowledge of the contents of the seized packets, the tribunal did not express an opinion on the merits of the issue. The decision to set aside the impugned order was based on the procedural flaw of imposing a composite penalty without specifying the amount under each enactment. The appellants were granted the opportunity to present their case on both legal and factual grounds during the re-adjudication process.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of proper apportionment of penalties under different enactments to ensure legal sustainability. The technical infirmity in the order led to its setting aside, allowing the appellants to contest the allegations and present their arguments before the adjudicating authority during re-adjudication in accordance with the law.