9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the first appellant and the second appellant. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of personal penalties upheld on appeal. 3. Ownership claim regarding seized goods. 4. Justification of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. Imposition of Penalty on the First Appellant and the Second Appellant: The judgment involves the imposition of penalties on the first appellant, Shri Vinod Lachwani, and the second appellant, Shri Murli Chainani. The penalties were set at Rs. 1.0 lac and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The first appellant had a penalty imposed for possessing contraband items, which was upheld due to various pieces of evidence, including his own statement, corroborated by the second appellant and the bus driver. Additionally, the appellant's residential premises were searched, and similar contraband items were found. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 75,000/- based on the submission that the value of the seized goods was overestimated. The penalty on the second appellant was set aside as no contraband items were found in his possession or in the van he was traveling in. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Personal Penalties Upheld on Appeal: The case involved the confiscation of goods and the imposition of personal penalties on the appellants. The first appellant, Shri Vinod Lachwani, was intercepted along with the second appellant, Shri Murli Chainani, while they were in possession of contraband items. The goods were confiscated, and personal penalties were imposed on both appellants. On appeal, the penalties and confiscation were upheld. The judgment considered various pieces of evidence, including statements from the appellants and the driver of the bus, to support the decision to uphold the penalties and confiscation. Ownership Claim Regarding Seized Goods: Regarding the ownership claim of the seized goods, the appellants denied ownership of the halogen bulbs and fax machine but claimed ownership of the garments used to wrap the contraband items. However, the judgment found that the garments were used for wrapping the contraband items based on the search list. The first appellant had denied ownership of all seized goods in a bail application, and the claim regarding the garments was raised later without evidence to dispute the search list. Therefore, the claim of ownership of the garments was not accepted. Justification of Penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act: The judgment analyzed the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The section applies to individuals involved in dealing with contraband items. The first appellant was found to have possessed and dealt with contraband items based on various pieces of evidence, including statements and the recovery of similar items from his residential premises. The penalty was upheld but reduced due to an overestimation of the value of the seized goods. In contrast, the penalty imposed on the second appellant was set aside as no contraband items were found in his possession or in the van he was traveling in, thus not meeting the criteria under Section 112(b) for penalty imposition. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the evidence considered, and the decisions made regarding the imposition of penalties, confiscation of goods, ownership claims, and the justification of penalties under the Customs Act.
|
