9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout limit. Under Clause (b) the penalty has to be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs where the value of goods came to be confiscated does not exceed ₹ 5 Lakhs and under Clause (c) same shall be adjudicated by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs where the value of the goods confiscated would not exceed ₹ 50,000/-. Undisputedly, in the instant case, value of goods was more than ₹ 5 lakhs and as per the appraisal value, who had appraised the gold bar so confiscated and had certified the weight at 2566.05 grams of 24 carot gold of foreign origin he had valued at ₹ 77,87,962/-. Before levy of penalty show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lligence input received by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mangalore (for short DRI ) that one passenger by name Sri. Abdul Kader an Indian citizen traveling from Dubai to Mumbai had concealed certain contraband gold under his seat No.12A and had disembarked at Mumbai International Airport leaving the gold in the said seat by making arrangements for said gold to be retrieved with the assistance of two employees working at Mangalore International Airport (Domestic) from the aircraft left from Mumbai to Mangalore and the names of the said employees was Sri.Mohammad Anif and Sri. Odiyanda Ayyappa Muddaiah (Appellant herein), DRI Officers had identified the said employees and had retrieved the gold hidden in the seat which was concealed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en passed by authority, which is not competent to pass such order under Section 120A of the Customs Act, 1962 and as such said order which has since received the confirmation by the appellate authority, is liable to be set aside by formulating the substantial question of law as formulated in appeal memorandum and answering the same in favour of appellant. 5. Per contra, Sri. K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for respondent would support the impugned orders and would contend that order in original which has been passed by the Additional Commissioner is just and proper and he being the competent authority to pass such an order, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order and he would contend there is no question of law involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without limit. Under Clause (b) the penalty has to be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs where the value of goods came to be confiscated does not exceed ₹ 5 Lakhs and under Clause (c) same shall be adjudicated by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs where the value of the goods confiscated would not exceed ₹ 50,000/-. Undisputedly, in the instant case, value of goods was more than ₹ 5 lakhs and as per the appraisal value, who had appraised the gold bar so confiscated and had certified the weight at 2566.05 grams of 24 carot gold of foreign origin he had valued at ₹ 77,87,962/-. Before levy of penalty show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the appellant herein, which formed part and parcel of the show cause notice and adjudication order, it came to be held that appellant herein has admitted in his statement furnished under Section 108 of the Customs Act and his role in the act of smuggling of gold or in other words, appellant has admitted his guilt, which statement so tendered by him was before the custom officers, who is not a police officer. A statement of an accused under Section 108 when recorded by a Customs Officer the safeguards provided under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not required to be followed. It is in this background, original authority as well as appellate authority have examined the statement. 10. In fact, appellant has not retracted his retrospective state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
