2017 (4) TMI 1295 - HC - Customs

Court upholds Tribunal's decision on penalty reduction, rejects appeals due to lack of evidence.

The High Court dismissed Revenue's appeals challenging the Tribunal's order reducing penalties for confiscation of goods, citing no substantial question ... Quantum of penalty - smuggling of currency - denial of request for adjournment - Held that: - As is the normal practice and tradition of this Court that, when an Advocate argues an appeal in the absence of the party and the Court expresses its disinclination, purely to accommodate the Advocate and understanding his position as an Officer of the Court we grant him/her time to speak to the client. If the client is unavailable on that particular date, we grant an adjournment. That is only to take limited instructions, namely, whether to invite order of dismissal on merits or to withdraw the appeal considering the disinclination of the Court. We are not inclined to grant this request for adjournment. We feel that Courts cannot be taken for a ride by litigants in this fashion. The Tribunal has clearly held that the said Rajendra Bhutada was the mastermind. Confiscation and penalty upheld - appeal dismissed. Issues:Appeal against Tribunal's order reducing penalty, Tribunal's finding of smuggling currency, Request for adjournment, Dismissal of appeals.Analysis:The High Court heard appeals challenging the Tribunal's order reducing penalties imposed for confiscation of goods. The Revenue's appeals, which contested the reduction of penalties, were dismissed as the Court found no substantial question of law in the matter. The Court addressed the argument that the appellants were masterminds behind smuggling currency. It was noted that the Tribunal's order did not support this claim, leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in maintaining the Tribunal's decision regarding penalties. The appellants sought an adjournment to consider their options, but the Court expressed dissatisfaction with their conduct. Despite the appellants' absence, the Court refused the request for an adjournment, citing the need to avoid being misled by litigants. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings of fact, stating that the appellants could not challenge the confiscation of goods and the reduced penalty. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the findings were based on factual evidence presented in the case.