Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the appellants for carrying/possessing the seized gold can be sustained where statements under Section 108 were relied upon but the procedure under Section 138B was not followed and a co-accused's appeal held the gold not to be smuggled.
Analysis: The appeals challenge confirmation of penalties imposed under Section 112(b)(i) based on recorded statements under Section 108 and related findings of involvement in smuggling. In Customs Appeal No. 50647 of 2024 concerning the principal accused, it was held that the gold bars were not smuggled and that statements recorded under Section 108 could not be treated as relevant evidence because the procedure required by Section 138B was not complied with. The impugned penalty orders against the present appellants were founded on the same class of statements and on the finding that the gold was smuggled. Given the earlier reasoned decision that the gold was not smuggled and that the Section 108 statements lacked admissibility in the absence of Section 138B procedure, the factual and evidentiary basis for imposing penalties under Section 112(b)(i) on these appellants is undermined.
Conclusion: The imposition of penalties under Section 112(b)(i) upon the appellants is not sustainable and is set aside; decision is in favour of the appellants (assessee).