TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following substantial questions of law: "i. Whether the Tribunal was right in law by remanding the matter to the Authorities on the premise that Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation as an option to the Authority, when the Authority had felt it not expedient to provide such an option of redemption and once the Authority had passed a detailed order of confiscation on merits and on considering the redemption clause 125 ? ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in following the decision in the case of P.Chinnasamy Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [reported in (2007) 220 ELT 308 (Tri-Chennai)] ? And iii. Whether, in the facts and circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot produce any evidence to show that the gold was legally imported into the country and he discharged the duty liability; that on the other hand, he had admitted that the gold was smuggled into the country and he recovered the smuggled gold and was transporting the same for certain consideration. Thus, the Commissioner of Customs concluded that the the gold had been smuggled into India without payment of duty and ordered absolute confiscation of the gold apart from imposing penalty on the first respondent. 7. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, he did not appear in person nor entered appearance through counsel. Hence, the Tribunal took up the appeal for consideration and after referring to its decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Air) Vs. P.Chinnasamy [CMA.No.1631 of 2008 dated 23.8.2016]. It is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order, which was referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The Division Bench of this Court, after elaborately considering the issue, held that the discretion ought not have been exercised in favour of a smuggler giving an option to redeem the goods and that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Competent Authority, who had denied the release of the goods. 11. At this juncture, it will be beneficial to refer to a few paragraphs of the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which read thu....