9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilver bricks would be going towards Indore after passing through Karkala had started checking all the lorries passing on that route. A truck with brick coloured front cabin was seen coming from Padubidri side and moving towards Karkala. The Officers stopped the vehicle and the vehicle was brought to DRI Office, Mangalore. The vehicle was searched and the officers recovered 75 white metallic bricks weighing 2676.394 kgs and valued at Rs. 2,14,11,152/-. The silver bricks were seized in terms of a mahazar. Statements of the driver and the cleaner were recorded. Thereafter the DRI apprehended the petitioner - Abdul Khader and obtained his voluntary statement. He confessed that he understood contents of the mahazar for seizure of 75 silver brick ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty. They justify their order. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5.After hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. 6.Before considering the merits of the matter, this Court has to take note of object of levy of penalty by the State. Penalty is being levied in terms of the Customs Act as a deterrent measure to arrest smuggling activity in this country. Section 34 of the Customs Act provides for confiscatory proceedings. Section 34A provides for inflicting punishment apart from levy of fines. It further provides for penalties in terms of the Act. The offences committed under Customs Act are economic offences. 7.The object of imposition of penalty is to arrest the tendency of repetition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch view the white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National interest, as was aptly stated in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [AIR 1987 1321]." 9.The Supreme Court also has noticed the object of penalty in the famous case of Organo Chemicals v. Union of India and Others - [1979 (4) SCC 573]. The Supreme Court noticed the question of damages in terms of Section 14B of the Employee's Provident Fund Act. It has noticed that imposition of damages under Section 14B serves a two-fold purpose. It results in damnification and also serves as a deterrent. The predominant object is to penalise, so that an employer may be thwarted or deferred from making any further defaults. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel that the levy of penalty in the given set of facts require my interference. I confirm the orders of the Tribunal in the larger interest of the country and to arrest smuggling activity in this country. 13.Insofar as the reference rejection is concerned, I am in full agreement with the Tribunal. There is no question of law that requires to be referred to this Court. The order of the Tribunal is based on the facts laid before it and therefore the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference application. Even otherwise, since I have come to a conclusion that on facts penalty is fully justified, I am not inclined to set aside Annexure-D at the instance of the petitioners. Moreover, petitioners argued only with regard to enhancement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
