2018 (9) TMI 1944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tent the penalty on the applicant was reduced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. The revision application is filed mainly on the ground that the penalty on the applicant has been wrongly upheld in Order-in-Appeal even when he did not do any act or omission in regard to illegal importation of gold. It is also pleaded that his case is not covered under Section 114AA of the Customs Act and, therefore, penalty is wrongly imposed on him under this Section. 2. A personal hearing was fixed on 11-7-2018 and thereafter it was scheduled on 13-8-2018 on the request of the applicant, which was availed by Sh. Jitender Singh himself who reiterated the grounds of revision already pleaded in their application. He specially asserted that he was not a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cluding gold bars. However after detailed examination of all the facts narrated in the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, it clearly emerges that there is no evidence in this case to establish that the applicant was aware about the secretion of gold bars in the TV stand. This fact was narrated in his first encounter with the Customs Officers at the Delhi Airport and the same was repeated subsequently by the applicant in his statements given before the Customs Officers. Even Mr. Pramod Saini the brother of Mr. Parveen based in Bangkok, who was to receive the TV from the applicant and pay Rs. 5,000/- for bringing the TV in India, has not stated anywhere in his several statements that the applicant was having any knowledge regarding se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Parveen in Bangkok to dupe the applicant to believe that he was to carry the TV only along with him for Rs. 5,000/- which could be covered in the baggage free allowance. The department's case is also not that the applicant is a frequent flier or a repeated offender and no concrete evidence is adduced that the applicant was knowingly or consciously involved in the smuggling of gold. Taking all these relevant facts into account, the Government considers it appropriate that the applicant should be held accountable only for carrying TV in India and not for illicit importation of gold bars by hiding in the TV stand which was known to Mr. Parveen in Thailand and Mr. Pramod Saini in India only and not the applicant. 4. Government also a....