2013 (10) TMI 732 - AT - Customs

Demand - Confiscation of gold ornaments - Held that - Duty was determined only for 28 persons separately and therefore prima facie, demand of duty on Masilamani is not sustainable. However, we find force in the submission of Ld. AR on the imposition of penalty as three applicants already admitted the offence which was merely retracted in reply to the show cause notice, cannot be acceptable. The department also proceeded on the basis of passengers photographs and the e-mail communication found from the three applicants and these 3 applicants also identified Masilamani. Therefore, penalty prima facie would be imposable on Masilamani and other 3 applicants. Considering the facts and circumstances and after hearing both sides, we direct the applicant S.Masilamani to deposit Rs.10,00,000 and Rs.1,00,000 each by Shri A. Senthilkumar, N. Senthilkumar and Shri R. Gopinathan within 6 weeks. However, since the Commissioner has already adjusted Rs.49,000/- against penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on Shri A. Senthilkumar, he is directed to deposit Rs.51,000 within six weeks. - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold jewellery and currency recovered from passengers at the airport.
2. Duty liability on gold ornaments brought into the country.
3. Imposition of penalties on the involved parties based on their roles in the case.

Confiscation of Gold Jewellery and Currency:
The case involved the interception of 6 passengers at Trichy Airport carrying gold jewellery and currency from Singapore. The passengers revealed that the goods were to be handed over to certain individuals waiting outside the airport. Subsequent investigations revealed a larger scheme involving unauthorized importation of gold ornaments and currency by multiple passengers at the behest of one individual. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the recovered items and imposed penalties on the involved parties.

Duty Liability on Gold Ornaments:
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the customs duty on the gold ornaments brought into the country by the passengers. The duty was determined separately for 28 passengers, totaling Rs.43,71,778, along with interest. However, the duty liability on the main individual, Masilamani, was deemed unsustainable as it was determined only for the passengers. The Tribunal found merit in the imposition of penalties on Masilamani and three other applicants who had admitted their involvement in the case.

Imposition of Penalties:
The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties on Masilamani and the three applicants based on their roles in the scheme. Masilamani was directed to deposit Rs.10,00,000, while the other three applicants were directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000 each within six weeks. One of the applicants, Senthilkumar, was directed to deposit Rs.51,000 due to a prior adjustment against his penalty amount. Compliance was required by a specified date, and upon deposit, the balance duty and penalty along with interest would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal process.

This judgment highlighted the confiscation of goods, duty liabilities, and penalties imposed in a case involving unauthorized importation of gold ornaments and currency, shedding light on the roles and responsibilities of the individuals involved in the scheme.