9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Stay application in a smuggling case involving non-declaration of gold upon arrival, waiver of pre-deposit, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962, and validity of penalty imposition without specifying sub-section.
In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, a stay application was filed on behalf of an individual, Mrs. Sabra, in Appeal No. C/489/91-NRB, seeking to stay recovery proceedings until the appeal decision and requesting a hearing without insisting on pre-deposit. The applicant was represented by a consultant, Shri N. Singh, while the respondents were represented by Shri V.K. Sharma. The consultant argued that Mrs. Sabra, an uneducated lady, was unknowingly used as a carrier for smuggling foreign marked gold pieces, citing a previous tribunal decision to support the plea for waiving the pre-deposit requirement. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the penalty imposed for smuggling gold was justified given the circumstances and market value involved. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and noted that Mrs. Sabra was intercepted without declaring possession of gold upon arrival from Dubai via Karachi. Despite specific inquiries, she did not disclose the gold, which was later discovered in her possession, including pieces concealed in her belongings. Mrs. Sabra admitted the recovery but claimed ignorance of the law. The Tribunal found that the gold was smuggled and not declared, leading to absolute confiscation of the smuggled gold and imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Mrs. Sabra. The Tribunal discussed various legal precedents, including Supreme Court decisions and tribunal rulings, emphasizing that the non-mention of specific sub-sections of the Customs Act, 1962, in the penalty imposition does not invalidate the action if the authority had the power to act under any provision of law. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of clarity in allegations and charges, citing cases where non-specification of sub-sections did not vitiate proceedings due to sufficient evidence and understanding of charges by the appellants. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal declined to grant a stay and directed Mrs. Sabra to deposit the penalty amount within two months; failure to comply would result in the appeal being liable for rejection. The decision underscored the seriousness of smuggling offenses and the need for compliance with customs laws, ultimately upholding the penalty imposition in the absence of ambiguity regarding the charges against Mrs. Sabra.
|
