9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Foreign goods were recovered from all the persons except the appellant. Fake Indian currency was recovered from two persons including the appellant. Believing that the goods were being illegally imported from Nepal into India and hence liable to confiscation, the officers seized the goods under a Panchnama. Statements of all the persons were recorded. Some follow up investigations also were conducted. On the basis of the investigative results, the department by show cause notice called upon the appellant and others to show cause why, inter alia, penalties should not be imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, for their alleged involvement in the smuggling of contraband goods. The noticees contested the proposal for impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct was not warranted. Counsel refers to the allegation that fake currency was recovered from the appellant s possession. He submits that the appellant was not aware of the presence of fake currency in the bags carried by him and had nothing to do with those goods. He also refers to the statements given by the appellant under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. However, no copy of any of the statements is available on record. Even a copy of the show cause notice is not available. Ld. counsel, finally, pleads for a lenient view against the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. DR reiterates the findings recorded by the Commissioner. He submits that the evidence on record would justify the penalty imposed on the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 111 of the Customs Act. On the other hand, he has clearly stated in the memorandum of appeal that he has no objection to such currency being confiscated. In the result, the sine qua non for confiscation under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act has been fulfilled in this case. The Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant, while he has imposed penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each only on many of the other noticees notwithstanding the fact that his finding against them is no different from that against the appellant. There appears to be a glaring element of discrimination in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh is too harsh to match the offence fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
