TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed, diamonds confiscated, penalties lifted for Patel brothers</h1> <h3>Bhargav B. Patel, Supaporn Viboonwetwanich@Kanchana, Nilesh B. Patel Versus Commissioner of Customs, CST, Mumbai</h3> Bhargav B. Patel, Supaporn Viboonwetwanich@Kanchana, Nilesh B. Patel Versus Commissioner of Customs, CST, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of seized diamonds and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Absolute confiscation vs. redemption of seized diamonds.3. Role and liability of individuals involved in the importation of diamonds.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Confiscation of Seized Diamonds and Imposition of Penalties under the Customs Act, 1962:The case arises from a common show cause notice proposing the confiscation of 623.13 carats of cut and polished diamonds valued at Rs. 31,65,323.41 under Sections 111(d), (f), (i), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of penalties on the appellants. The appeals challenge the Order-in-Original dated 28.3.2013, which imposed penalties on Ms. Supaporn Vibbonwetwanich (Ms. Kanchana) and Mr. Nilesh B. Patel under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and directed absolute confiscation of the diamonds, erroneously identified as rough diamonds. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication, leading to the current impugned order.Absolute Confiscation vs. Redemption of Seized Diamonds:Ms. Kanchana challenged the absolute confiscation of the diamonds, arguing that the adjudicating authority was mandated to provide an option to redeem the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the diamonds were not prohibited goods. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'prohibited goods' under Section 2(33) should not be liberally applied in the context of Section 125. The Tribunal referenced precedents from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Madras High Court, which held that goods not expressly prohibited must be given an option for redemption. The Tribunal agreed that an option to redeem the diamonds was mandatory but did not interfere with the order of absolute confiscation as Ms. Kanchana, through her advocate, declined the option of redemption.Role and Liability of Individuals Involved in the Importation of Diamonds:The Tribunal examined the involvement of Mr. Bhargav B. Patel and Mr. Nilesh B. Patel in the importation of the seized diamonds. The investigation revealed that the parcel containing the diamonds was sent from Bangkok by Ms. Kanchana without the knowledge of Mr. Bhargav Patel or his sister, the consignee, Ms. Shilpaben. Ms. Kanchana admitted to sending the parcel and mis-declaring its contents to evade customs duty. The Tribunal found no evidence that Mr. Bhargav Patel or Mr. Nilesh Patel had any involvement in the smuggling of the diamonds. The Tribunal noted that Mr. Bhargav Patel's statements, recorded under Section 108, did not incriminate him or his brother. The Tribunal concluded that the role of Mr. Bhargav Patel and Mr. Nilesh Patel in the smuggling was not established even on the preponderance of probability and set aside the penalties imposed on them.Conclusion:The appeal filed by Ms. Kanchana was dismissed, and the appeals filed by Mr. Bhargav B. Patel and Mr. Nilesh Patel were allowed. The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the diamonds but set aside the penalties imposed on Mr. Bhargav B. Patel and Mr. Nilesh Patel, finding no evidence of their involvement in the smuggling of the diamonds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
