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 Upholds Gold Confiscation; Penalties Reduced After Considering Precedents and Case Circumstances.</h1> <h3>Shri Chandan Das Versus Commissioner of Cusotms (Preventive), Kolkata And Shri Biplab Hemram Versus Commissioner of Cusotms (Preventive), Kolkata</h3> Shri Chandan Das Versus Commissioner of Cusotms (Preventive), Kolkata And Shri Biplab Hemram Versus Commissioner of Cusotms (Preventive), Kolkata - TMI Issues involved: Seizure of gold believed to be of foreign origin, confiscation of gold under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of penalty, reduction of penalty.Summary:Seizure of Gold and Confiscation:The appellants were intercepted and gold weighing 4.33 kilograms, believed to be of foreign origin, along with cash and a mobile phone were seized from their possession. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued as the appellants could not produce documents regarding the legal importation or possession of the seized gold. The seized gold was absolutely confiscated under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and penalties were imposed on both appellants.Legal Arguments and Precedents:The appellants sought a reduction in penalty based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in a specific case. The appellants argued that as the gold in question was not prohibited goods, penalties should be imposed accordingly. However, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue relied on various decisions to support the penalties imposed on the appellants.Judgment and Penalty Reduction:After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted the reliance on legal precedents and found that penalties were imposable but considered them to be on the higher side. The penalties imposed on the appellants were reduced to Rs. 10,00,000 each. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from the cited precedent, emphasizing that penalties cannot be equated based on the circumstances. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were disposed of with the reduced penalties.This judgment highlights the legal aspects surrounding the seizure, confiscation, and penalty imposition related to the possession of gold believed to be of foreign origin, emphasizing the application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the consideration of legal precedents in determining the appropriate penalties.
TaxTMI 