2023 (12) TMI 965 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalties under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - possession of contraband or not - HELD THAT - On going through the statements of the appellants which were recorded during the course of investigation, the appellants themselves have admitted that one Ayub Bhai has told them that the vehicle is carrying 120 pieces of gold which were kept in fuel chamber secretly concealed in the said vehicle. The said fact was in the knowledge of the appellants and at the time of interception of the vehicle, the appellants have made statement that they were not carrying any contraband goods with them, which shows that the mala fides of the appellants, in that circumstances, the penalty is rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority to meet the ends of justice and to teach a lesson to the appellants not to involve in such activities in future. There are no infirmity in the impugned order for imposing penalty on the appellants. The impugned order qua imposing penalties on the appellants of Rs.10.00 Lakhs and Rs.1.00 Lakh respectively, is upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The case involves penalties imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants for smuggling gold of foreign origin into India.

Facts and Findings:
The appellants were intercepted by DRI officers based on intelligence and a thorough search of the vehicle revealed 120 pieces of gold biscuits in the fuel chamber. The appellants initially denied carrying any contraband but later admitted to knowingly transporting the gold as per instructions. Statements recorded during the investigation confirmed their involvement in the smuggling operation orchestrated by a certain individual named Ayub Bhai. The appellants were aware of the gold being concealed in the vehicle, and their involvement was established through their voluntary statements.

Arguments and Decision:
The appellants argued that they were unaware of the gold in the vehicle and were merely asked to deliver it to Kolkata. However, the department contended that the smuggling of gold was evident, and the penalties were rightfully imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. After considering the submissions and the recorded statements of the appellants, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) upheld the imposition of penalties amounting to Rs.10.00 Lakhs and Rs.1.00 Lakh on the appellants. The decision was based on the appellants' admission of knowledge regarding the smuggled gold and their participation in the illegal activity. The penalties were deemed necessary to serve justice and deter the appellants from engaging in such unlawful activities in the future.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal affirmed the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellants for smuggling gold into India. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed, and the penalties of Rs.10.00 Lakhs and Rs.1.00 Lakh were upheld.