Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT allowed appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
CESTAT allowed appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
