9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. 2. Validity of statements made by individuals involved in the case. 3. Financial hardship claimed by the appellants. Issue 1: The judgment involved the confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties under both the Customs Act, 1962, and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The case revolved around the seizure of 15 foreign marked gold bars valued at Rs. 6 lakhs from two individuals. Statements from the individuals involved indicated a chain of procurement starting from Ashok of Kamathipura to Ravi Ganguly and eventually to the carriers. The Collector of Customs (Preventive) had confiscated the gold and imposed penalties on the individuals. The appeals were filed against the penalties imposed. Issue 2: The validity of the statements made by the individuals, particularly Bharat Kumar Jain and Ravi Ganguly, was questioned. Bharat Kumar Jain initially stated that he procured the gold from Ashok of Kamathipura and passed it on to Ravi Ganguly. However, he later retracted his statement in court. Ravi Ganguly also retracted his statement during remand proceedings. The Collector considered the retracted statement of Ganguly as retaining evidential value, as Ashok Gaikwad had not retracted his statements. The summary of statements indicated the flow of gold from Bharat Kumar Jain to the carriers, supporting the Collector's decision to impose penalties. Issue 3: The appellants claimed financial hardship, with one being a low-paid employee who lost his job and the other being a college student at the time of the incident. The financial constraints were considered, leading to a reduction of penalties based on the amounts already deposited by the appellants in compliance with a stay order. The penalty amounts were adjusted to account for the financial difficulties faced by the appellants, resulting in a reduction based on the amounts already paid. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the confiscation of gold, validity of statements, and financial hardship claimed by the appellants. The penalties imposed under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act were analyzed in light of the statements made by the individuals involved, with considerations given to financial constraints leading to a reduction in penalties based on amounts already deposited.
|
