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>Government Upholds Customs Act Penalty for Smuggling Gold Bars</h1> <h3>IN RE : ABDUL KALAM AMMANGOD KUNHAMU</h3> IN RE : ABDUL KALAM AMMANGOD KUNHAMU - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1743 (G. O. I.) Issues:Confiscation of gold bars, imposition of penalty, redemption of confiscated goods, violation of Customs Act, 1962, eligibility to import gold, redemption fine, smuggling of goods, application of Section 125, prohibited goods, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.Confiscation of Gold Bars:The case involved the confiscation of gold bars weighing 1000 grams, valued at &8377; 24,20,290, which were concealed in a baggage trolley. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, due to lack of lawful import/possession declaration.Imposition of Penalty:A penalty of &8377; 4,80,000 was imposed on the applicant for attempting to smuggle the gold bars to evade customs duty. The penalty was justified under Section 112(a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as the applicant violated customs procedures by not declaring the gold.Redemption of Confiscated Goods:The applicant sought redemption of the confiscated gold under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, for home consumption or re-export. However, the adjudicating authority correctly decided not to offer redemption, citing the concealment of goods and the intention to evade customs duty.Violation of Customs Act, 1962:The applicant admitted to purchasing the gold in Dubai and attempting to bring it into India without proper declaration. This act constituted a violation of the Customs Act, 1962, and rules governing the import of goods, leading to the confiscation of the gold bars.Eligibility to Import Gold:The applicant claimed that gold should not be considered a prohibited item and argued for the release of the confiscated goods on redemption fine. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the applicant was not eligible to import gold under relevant notifications and regulations.Prohibited Goods and Penalty Imposition:The judgment highlighted that the imported gold in raw form violated the Baggage Rules, 2016, and was considered prohibited goods. The penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, was deemed appropriate, while penalty under Section 114AA was found inapplicable.In conclusion, the Government rejected the Revision Application, modifying the Commissioner (Appeals) order to uphold the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of attempting to smuggle prohibited goods and evade customs duties, affirming the confiscation and penalty imposed in this case.
TaxTMI 