2003 (1) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds penalty for seized gold biscuits under Customs Act

The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the seizure of foreign marked gold biscuits. The appellant failed to prove ... Smuggling - Gold - Burden of proof - Penalty (Customs) - Imposition of Issues:Challenge of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on seizure of foreign marked gold biscuits.Analysis:The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act due to the seizure of 8 foreign marked gold biscuits weighing 116 tolas. The appellant failed to produce any document proving legal possession or import of the gold biscuits, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation and penalty under Sections 111 and 112. Investigation revealed financial support for importing gold biscuits, involving another individual, Rakesh Soni, who was noticee No. 2. The adjudicating officer ordered confiscation of the gold biscuits and imposed a penalty of Rs. 85,000 on the appellant, while dropping proceedings against Rakesh Soni due to lack of proof of involvement.The appellant's counsel argued that there was no evidence proving the smuggled nature of the gold biscuits, shifting the burden of proof to the Department. However, the appellant admitted possession of the foreign gold biscuits without contesting their smuggled nature or providing documentation of legal import. The counsel's reliance on legal precedent was deemed irrelevant as the appellant's admission negated the need for further evidence. The confiscated gold biscuits were deemed legally imported by the appellant, justifying their confiscation.Another argument raised was the lack of specific mention of Section 112 in the penalty imposition, citing legal cases. The tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the absence of specific clause mention did not invalidate the penalty imposition. Since Section 112 was referenced and pertained to penalties for confiscated contraband under Section 111, further specification was unnecessary. The legal precedents cited were deemed inapplicable to the case, upholding the legality of the penalty imposition.In conclusion, the tribunal found no illegality in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and upheld it. The appellant's appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, affirming the penalty imposition and confiscation of the gold biscuits.