9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w or had reasons to believe about the illicit nature and therefore liable to confiscation. In these circumstances, imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 112(b) is fully justified. Further, penalty of ₹ 5 Lakh each has been imposed on these appellants. Looking at the degree of involvement it is felt that penalties of ₹ 5 Lakh each on these three appellants namely Shri Jaisukh Gobarbhai Savalia, Shri Vikram Natvarlal Patel and Shri Dhanji Nanji Varia is excessive and the same are reduced to ₹ 50,000/- each. Penalty on Ms. Mancy H Kumpavat - Held that:- It is seen that she may have assisted in the activities of two main noticees but she was not directly involved in any manner. In these circumstances, imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f diamonds smuggled this time which were confiscated in the impugned proceedings. He argued that there is no proposal for confiscation of the earlier imports made by the aforesaid two noticees and therefore, Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked and no penalty can be imposed. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Sancheti vs. CC, Ahmedabad (2013) 292 ELT 273. 3. In the alternate, Ld. Counsel pleaded that the penalty on the appellant to the tune of ₹ 10 Lakhs and ₹ 5 Lakhs is excessive. He pleaded for leniency. 4. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the impugned order. Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows :- Section 112 in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 5 Lakh each on these three appellants namely Shri Jaisukh Gobarbhai Savalia, Shri Vikram Natvarlal Patel and Shri Dhanji Nanji Varia is excessive and the same are reduced to ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each. 6. As regards the role of Ms. Mancy H Kumpavat, it is alleged that she was acting as interpreter for the two main noticees for their conversation with the local job workers/ buyers of the diamonds. She was fully aware of the iilicit nature of activities of both the main noticees. She also admitted in her statement about the fact that these two main noticees were dealing in smuggled diamonds. She accompanied/ witnessed the negotiation of sale/ job work of smuggled diamonds. However, it is seen that she may have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
