Airport employees penalized under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) for concealing 645 grams gold in shoe

CESTAT Kolkata upheld penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 against two airport store employees for smuggling 645.500 grams of gold. The first appellant concealed gold in his shoe after receiving it in airport toilet, while the second appellant, his superior, instructed the concealment. Both were found liable for smuggling activities despite not being owners or beneficiaries. However, CESTAT reduced penalties from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 each, considering their lack of prior smuggling history and limited role compared to the actual beneficiary who was not investigated.

---

---

Issues:
- Confirmation of penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling of gold bars of foreign origin.
- Misuse of Entry Pass/Identity Card by the appellants for smuggling activities.
- Role of each appellant in the smuggling activity.
- Justification of the penalty imposed on the appellants.
- Consideration of mitigating factors for reducing the penalty.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata involved two appeals arising from the same Order-in-Appeal. The appellants, Shri Ayan Das and Shri Syed Ghazanfar Raza Hussain, were working at an airport store where they misused their Entry Pass/Identity Card to assist in smuggling one cut piece gold bar of foreign origin. The impugned gold was recovered from the possession of Shri Ayan Das, who concealed it in his shoe to deliver it to another individual. Both appellants were intercepted by the Airport Intelligence Unit, leading to the imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellants argued that they had no prior smuggling history, were not the owners or beneficiaries of the gold, and faced significant mental trauma and job loss post-incident. They contended that the penalty did not align with their roles and requested a reduction. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue upheld the penalty, citing the misuse of Entry Pass/Identity Card and established roles in the smuggling activity.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that both appellants were involved in the smuggling, with Shri Ayan Das as the carrier and Shri Syed Ghazanfar Raza Hussain as an abettor. Despite their lack of prior smuggling records and non-beneficiary status, the penalty was deemed disproportionate to their roles. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the penalty for each appellant from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, considering their mitigating circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' involvement in the smuggling activity but recognized mitigating factors warranting a reduction in the penalties imposed, ultimately deciding to reduce the penalties for both appellants based on the roles played and circumstances of the case.

---