9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the revisional authority under the Customs Act, 1962 ("Customs Act"), dismissing the revision applications filed by each of these petitioners against orders made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and adjudicating authority under the Customs Act. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of these petitions by a common order. 3. These petitions are directed against concurrent orders made by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the revisional authority, ordering and upholding the confiscation of 36 gold bars weighing 10 Tolas each, totalling 4197 Grams, a cash amount of Rs. 2.85 Lakhs, and penalties. 4. Mr Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that petitioner - Mukesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionary jurisdiction. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. The three orders impugned in these petitions are mainly based on the appreciation of factual material on record. The three orders record the findings of fact upon evaluating this factual material. Therefore, unless perversity is pointed out or a case of the level of the findings being based on no evidence or the findings being contrary to the weight of evidence on record is made out, there is no question of interference. 10. The petitioners have not made out any case for perversity. The findings are well supported by material on record. In any event, our extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be equated to the appellate jurisdiction. The material on record is suf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity notes that the gold bars were found in possession of one of the petitioners, Waqas Abdul Hameed Shaikh (A.1), who was about to hand it over to the other petitioner, James John (A2). The record indicates that A1 had initially claimed ownership of gold bars, and only belatedly, Mukesh Pahuja (A3), who had been travelling on the same flight, claimed ownership of the gold bars by subsequently producing the invoice. The order records the modus operandi to smuggle gold bars, and these findings warrant no interference. 13. Mr Mishra is justified in referring to paragraphs 13 and 14. of the revisional authority's order, which reads as follows:- "13. The main issue in the case is the quantum and manner in which the impugned gold was being br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out to hand it over to A2. Initially, A1 had claimed ownership of the gold and later A3 who had been travelling in the same flight as Al had claimed ownership of the gold. The innovative plan to smuggle the gold bars had been hatched by A3 and the services of A1, A3, A4 and A5 had been taken by him. Investigations have revealed that all the 5 applicants were involved in this smuggling sortie; A1 had carried the gold bars from Doha which had been handed over to him by A3 who too was in the flight from Doha to Mumbai. Thereafter, at the airport A2 was supposed to collect the gold bars and take it outside and hand it over to A4 who was waiting there. A5 who was the brother of A3 had introduced him to A4. A4 had contacts with A2 and had made hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
