Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Gold Jewellery, Reduces Penalties on SGPL

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of gold jewellery for mis-declaration but reduced the redemption fine and penalties imposed on SGPL. The penalty on SGPL was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs, and penalties on other appellants were set aside based on lack of evidence or disproportionate imposition. The Tribunal acknowledged actions taken by individuals to rectify the situation and modified the impugned order accordingly, partially allowing appeals and setting aside penalties for those not directly involved in the mis-declaration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 113(h) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty under Sections 114(iii), 114AA, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 on SGPL and other appellants for mis-declaration of gold content in exported jewellery.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Goods:
The appellant, SGPL, filed a shipping bill for the export of 15290.330 gms of 22 Carat Studded Gold Jewellery, declaring a gold content of 13633.730 gms. Upon re-examination, the actual gold content was found to be only 3540 gms. The discrepancy led to the issuance of a show-cause notice proposing the confiscation of the goods under Section 113(h) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority confiscated the gold jewellery, allowing redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 35 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on SGPL under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 20 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs on SGPL.

2. Imposition of Penalty:
- SGPL and Shri Roshan Vernekar:
The Tribunal found that the mis-declaration of gold content was established. However, it noted that the penalty imposed was disproportionate. The penalty on SGPL was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. For Shri Roshan Vernekar, the Tribunal acknowledged his omission in verifying the gold content but recognized his subsequent action of filing a criminal case against the karigar. The penalty under Section 114AA was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs, and the penalty under Section 114(iii) was set aside.

- Ms. Deepa Vernekar and Ms. Shilpa Vernekar:
The Tribunal found no evidence implicating these directors in the mis-declaration. They were not involved in the day-to-day business or in signing any export documents. Consequently, the penalties imposed on them were set aside.

- M/s Protocol Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vinay Shah:
The Tribunal found no cogent evidence that the CHA or Shri Vinay Shah was aware of the mis-declaration of gold content. The CHA had signed the documents as disclosed to them, and Shri Vinay Shah was not proven to be their employee. Therefore, the penalties imposed on them were set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the appeals of Ms. Deepa Vernekar, Ms. Shilpa Vernekar, M/s Protocol Logistics Pvt. Ltd., and Shri Vinay Shah, and partly allowing the appeals of SGPL and Shri Roshan Vernekar by reducing the fine and penalties.

---