9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 12 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty on the appellant since goods were found in his name - Levy of penalty on the Valuer and other persons - Absolute Confiscation - seized gold bars - denial of cross-examination - relevance of statements - HELD THAT - From the facts as recorded in the impugned order it is evident that the two persons namely Shri Rajat gupta and Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, valuer are neither co-accused in the matter nor are they the panch witnesses. The persons whose cross examination has been asked by the appellant were the person whose statement revenue intends to rely for proceedings against the appellant. In the present case it is interesting to note that the Commissioner has by the impugned order imposed penalties under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) on the appellant and others in respect of the same offense. This only goes to show total lack of understanding of the legal provisions by the adjudicating authority. While imposing the penalties in this manner adjudicating authority has even failed to examine the legal provisions and the case law on the subject. Not a single word is recorded in the impugned order as to why penalty is imposable under Section 112 (a) and/ or section 112 (b) in the impugned order. This clearly shows that the impugned order has been passed in haste without even recording a finding on the basic issues and the legal provisions. The matter needs to be reconsidered by the Original Authority after permitting the cross-examination of the referred two persons before deciding the matter - Matter is remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for allowing the cross examination request of the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of seized gold bars. 2. Confiscation of the seized vehicle. 3. Confiscation of packing material. 4. Imposition of penalties on individuals involved. 5. Denial of cross-examination requests by the adjudicating authority. Summary: Issue 1: Confiscation of Seized Gold Bars The Commissioner ordered the absolute confiscation of 5,000 grams of gold bars valued at Rs. 2,46,00,000 under Section 111(a), 111(b), 111(h), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The gold bars were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on a reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation. Issue 2: Confiscation of the Seized Vehicle The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the seized Hyundai Venue car under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option was given to the legal owner to redeem the vehicle on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000 within one month, failing which the vehicle would be disposed of as per the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 3: Confiscation of Packing Material The Commissioner ordered the absolute confiscation of the packing material (HDPE bag) under Section 118 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 4: Imposition of Penalties on Individuals Involved Penalties were imposed as follows: - Rs. 7 Crore on Mr. Mayank Agrawal under Section 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. - Rs. 10 lacs each on Mr. Rajwan Singh and Mr. Mohammad Sarfaraz Hashmi under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 5: Denial of Cross-Examination Requests The appellant's request for cross-examination of two individuals, Shri Rajat Gupta and Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, was denied by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner relied on various judgments to justify this denial, stating that the statements made by these individuals were voluntary and had not been retracted. The Commissioner cited several case laws to support the decision, including Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. UOI, Jagdish Shanker Trivedi v. Commissioner of Customs, Onida Saka Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, and Telestar Travels Pvt Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner relied on judgments that were not on identical facts and highlighted the importance of cross-examination in ensuring the principles of natural justice. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration after permitting the cross-examination of the two individuals. The Tribunal emphasized the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice and the legal provisions regarding cross-examination. All issues were kept open for reconsideration.
|
