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>Tribunal Overturns Penalties; Upholds Gold Confiscation in Customs Act Dispute.</h1> <h3>Shri Lalkrosenga Versus Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Shillong And Shri C Lalkhuma Versus Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Shillong</h3> Shri Lalkrosenga Versus Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Shillong And Shri C Lalkhuma Versus Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Shillong - TMI Issues involved: Seizure of gold bars, confiscation, penalties under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.Summary:The Appellants were travelling from Imphal to Mumbai when they were intercepted at the Airport and eight pieces of gold bars weighing 6 Kgs were seized from them. A Show Cause Notice was issued seeking to confiscate the gold bars valued at Rs. 1,56,00,000/- and impose penalties on the three Appellants under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority passed an order confiscating the gold bars absolutely and imposing penalties, leading the Appellants to appeal before the Tribunal.The Learned Counsel argued that no one claimed ownership of the gold bars, hence the confiscation was not challenged. They contested the penalties imposed, highlighting discrepancies in the seizure report and lack of evidence regarding the foreign origin of the gold bars. The statements given by the Appellants were inconsistent, with one Appellant claiming to have bought the gold from Myanmar while later stating he found it in a garbage bin.Regarding the Second Appellant, no gold was seized, and the case against her was based on bank statements showing cash transactions. The Counsel argued that cash transactions alone do not prove involvement with the seized gold. The third Appellant claimed he was unaware of the gold bars and had accompanied the first Appellant only for assistance during travel, asserting no case against him.After reviewing the documents and arguments, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to prove the case against the Appellants for imposing penalties under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. As a result, the penalties were set aside, and the Appeals were allowed. The order for absolute confiscation of the gold bars remained upheld as it was not challenged by the Appellants.In conclusion, the Appeals were disposed of with the penalties being set aside, and the confiscation order remaining in effect.
TaxTMI 