9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appellant's absence and request for adjournment. 2. Recovery of foreign origin goods and involvement of the appellant. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 4. Comparison of penalties imposed on different individuals involved. 5. Reduction of penalty on the present appellant. Issue 1: The appellant was absent, citing indisposition and a history of requesting adjournments. The Tribunal declined the request for adjournment and proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR. Issue 2: The appellant, a Manager at a Transport Company, was present during a raid where foreign origin goods were recovered. He admitted to the recovery of the goods and disclosed details about their ownership and handling, indicating his involvement in the incident. Issue 3: The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the present appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The appellant's knowledge about the smuggled goods was established, and he was held liable for the penalty. Issue 4: The owner of the Transport Company was also penalized, with his penalty being reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs by the Tribunal. In comparison, the present appellant's penalty was reduced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs considering his role as the Manager and the circumstances of the case. Issue 5: The Tribunal, while upholding the appellant's liability under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, reduced his penalty to Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the initial amount imposed. This reduction was based on the appellant's position in the company and the penalty adjustment made for the owner of the company. In summary, the Tribunal found the appellant's involvement in the recovery of smuggled goods established, leading to the imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act. Despite reducing the penalty amount due to the appellant's role as a Manager and the penalty adjustment made for the owner, the appeal was dismissed except for the modification in the penalty amount.
|
