2007 (3) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the officer in the presence of witnesses as to whether he was possessed of any gold or silver in his baggage or on his person, the appellant replied in the negative and attempted to pass through green channel. However, his baggage was checked by the officer in the presence of witnesses, whereupon 29 gold bars with foreign markings, each weighing 10 tolas, and 3 gold coins each weighing 8 gms. were recovered. The total value of the gold so recovered was estimated at Rs. 13,84,818/-. The person of the appellant was also searched but nothing incriminating was recovered. The gold bars and coins were seized under a mahazar for further action under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. In a statement given under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Appeal No. C/256/2001 The appellant, who arrived by an Air India flight from Riyadh on 14-12-2000 was intercepted by the Customs at Chennai airport and queried as to whether he was possessed of any contraband, to which he replied in the negative. On subsequent examination of his baggage in the presence of witnesses, officers of customs recovered 38 gold bars with foreign markings, weighing 4427 gms. and valued at Rs. 18,01,789/-. The goods were seized. The appellant, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, stated that he was carrying the contraband for a reward of Rs. 30,000/- paid by one Shri Ruzack. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice and pleaded for adjudication of the case. Submissions similar to those which were made on behalf of the other appellants were also made by this appellant before the Commissioner. In adjudication, the Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act. 2. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they were entitled to an opportunity to redeem the seized goods against payment of a reasonable fine in view of decisions of this Tribunal. The penalties imposed on the appellants were arbitrary and excessive and the same required to be reduced substantially, if not set aside. In this connection, learned counsel relied ....