2017 (9) TMI 397 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 - case of petitioner is that provisions of Section 112 cannot be attracted in this case since the appellant as not an importer of the goods but only carried the goods on request by an individual whom he met at Hyderabad Airport - Held that - the claim of the appellant that he was innocent seems to be unacceptable as he could have told Customs Authorities that he had one bag which -he is carrying for some other person. Another claim of the learned counsel that he was not aware that the bag contained gold biscuit is also unacceptable in as much, a person if he is handed over 12 gold bars which is weighing approximately 1.3 Kgs, could have definitely asked for questions to the person who is giving him the bag. In my considered view both the lower authorities were correct in coming to a conclusion that the appellant needs to be penalised for carrying contraband with him - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant intercepted at airport with undeclared gold bars.
2. Confiscation of gold bars under Customs Act.
3. Imposition of penalty on the Appellant.
4. Appeal against penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interception of the Appellant at the airport with 12 gold bars hidden in his pant pockets, which he did not declare. Despite denying knowledge of the gold bars, they were found to be of foreign origin and valued at a significant amount. The Customs Act provisions regarding seizure and confiscation of contraband goods were invoked based on the circumstances.

2. The Customs officers seized the gold bars under Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, believing them to be liable for confiscation. The Appellant's statement under Section 108 revealed that he was given the gold bars by an unknown individual at the Hyderabad Airport, claiming he was unaware of the contents and was threatened to carry them. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold bars and imposed a penalty under Sections 111(d), 111(i), and 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The Appellant appealed against the penalty imposition, asserting innocence and lack of awareness regarding the gold bars' contents. However, the 1st Appellate Authority upheld the penalty after due consideration of the submissions. The Appellant's counsel argued that the penalties should be set aside due to the Appellant's alleged innocence and illiteracy, claiming he was misled and trapped by others.

4. During the appeal hearing, the Appellant's counsel highlighted discrepancies in the proceedings, alleging that the Appellant was coerced to sign a blank declaration form at the Visakhapatnam Airport. The Appellant's defense of being an unwitting carrier of the gold bars was refuted, as he failed to disclose the gold despite specific queries by Customs officers. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing that the Appellant's claims of innocence were untenable, given the circumstances surrounding the undeclared gold bars. The imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was rejected.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment outlines the issues, facts, legal provisions, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the interception, confiscation, and penalty imposition related to the undeclared gold bars carried by the Appellant.