Tribunal Upholds Rs. 1,00,000 Penalty for Smuggling Foreign Cigarettes; Appellant Misses Hearings, Appeal Dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, dismissing the appellant's appeal. Despite multiple opportunities for hearings and cross-examinations, the appellant failed to appear, leading the Tribunal to decide based on the merits and with the Revenue's consent. The appellant's involvement in smuggling foreign origin cigarettes was confirmed, and the Tribunal found no justification to overturn the original adjudication, maintaining the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.

---

---

Issues Involved: Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling foreign origin cigarettes.

Summary:
1. The appellant, Shri Ashok Tahilram Sadarangani, filed an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite multiple opportunities for hearings, the appellant did not appear, leading to a risk of dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedures) Rules, 1982.

2. The case involved an attempt to smuggle foreign origin cigarettes into the country, intercepted by Customs Officers. The appellant was issued a show-cause notice for imposition of penalty, which was subsequently adjudicated, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The case was remanded for fresh determination due to insufficient reasons for the penalty, and after further adjudication, the penalty was maintained.

3. The appellant was given ample opportunities for hearings and cross-examination of relevant persons. Despite the opportunities provided on various dates, the appellant did not appear, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the legal remedy. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the case on its merits with the consent of the Revenue's Authorized Representative.

4. The appellant was one of the noticees involved in the smuggling activity, which included foreign origin cigarettes and cosmetics. The original authority provided personal hearing opportunities to the appellant and decided the issue on merits. After a detailed examination, the Tribunal found no grounds to entertain the appeal and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

---