2018 (7) TMI 448 - AT - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - penalty - Smuggling - Red Sanders - the case of the Revenue is that the appellant is the mastermind of the smuggling of Red Sanders wood - Held that - The appellant did not appear before the DRI Officer during the investigation. The Learned Counsel did not dispute the recovery of the telephone from the possession of the co-accused who was directly involved with the alleged smuggling - The appellant supplied the sanitary items to the co-accused. It is a case of a syndicate of smuggling of the Red Sanders in violation of the provisions of law where the appellant was involved and therefore, imposition of penalty is warranted - however, the quantum of penalty is reduced. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Seizure of Red Sanders wood and other woods
- Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties
- Alleged involvement in smuggling
- Evidence against the appellant
- Role of the appellant in the smuggling syndicate
- Quantum of penalty imposed

Seizure of Red Sanders wood and other woods:
The case involved the seizure of Red Sanders wood and other woods in two separate incidents, leading to the issuance of Show Cause Notices by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The goods were seized in vehicles loaded with sanitary items, with the intention to smuggle them to specific locations near the border.

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties:
The Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods absolutely and imposed penalties, including a penalty of &8377; 10 Lakhs each under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants for both Show Cause Notices separately. This decision led to the filing of appeals by the appellants.

Alleged involvement in smuggling:
The appellant was alleged to be the mastermind of the smuggling of Red Sanders wood based on evidence and findings presented by the Revenue. The appellant's involvement was highlighted in both cases, indicating a similar role in the smuggling activities.

Evidence against the appellant:
The appellant's counsel argued that there was no concrete evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling activities apart from telephone numbers provided by co-accused individuals. The Revenue failed to produce direct or indirect evidence of the appellant's involvement in the smuggling, questioning the basis for imposing penalties.

Role of the appellant in the smuggling syndicate:
The findings of the Adjudicating authority revealed details of the appellant's alleged involvement in the smuggling syndicate. The appellant was accused of procuring, storing, loading, and transporting the contraband wood, along with preparing forged documents for smuggling activities. The appellant's deliberate avoidance of investigation further indicated his mens rea in the offenses.

Quantum of penalty imposed:
After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal upheld the impugned Order but reduced the quantum of penalty imposed on the appellants to &8377; 5,00,000/- each in both cases. The decision was based on the appellant's involvement in the syndicate and the smuggling activities, warranting a penalty but adjusting the amount based on the arguments presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals with the modified penalty amount, maintaining the imposition of penalties but adjusting the quantum based on the circumstances of the case and the appellant's role in the smuggling activities.