Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2020 (6) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gence, Mangalore (for short 'DRI') that gold was being smuggled by one Sri. Abdul Khader an Indian citizen traveling from Dubai to Mumbai and had concealed contraband gold under his seat No.12A and two employees of Spicejet namely, Sri.Mohammad Anif and Sri. Odiyanda Ayyappa Muddaiah. DRI Officers had assisted after having identified the said employees had retrieved the gold hidden in the seat which was concealed in 2 deftly concealed packets inside the backrest cushion of said seat on disembarkment of all the passengers and said package came to be seized under panchas. Proceedings came to be initiated against them and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation statements of said two (2) persons under Section 108 of Cus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unity to the appellant herein order dated 28.05.2018 came to be passed by appellate authority dismissing the appeal by upholding the order in original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. Further appeal to the CESTAT did not yield any fruitful result to the appellant and second appeal also came to be dismissed vide Final Order No.20619/2019 dated 06.08.2019. Hence, this appeal contending interalia that based on the statements of co-employees penalty has been levied and as such statements recorded under the Customs Act could not have been relied upon for passing the impugned order in original and the entire procedure adopted by the original authority is erroneous. 5. Sri. Dakshina Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  (a) without limit, by a [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] or a [Joint Commissioner of Customs]; (b) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed [five lakh] rupees, by an [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs]; (c) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed [fifty thousand] rupees, by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs." 8. A plain reading of above provision would indicate that in every case under the said Chapter i.e., Chapter XIV under which anything is liable to be confiscated or any person is liable to be imposed with the penalty has to be adju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... occurs in any Chapter under the Act other than Chapter XIV it would mean and include Additional Commissioner of Customs also. In the instant case, order under Section 122 having been passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs under Chapter XIV, said authority would fall within the definition of Section 2(8) and as such order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs cannot be faulted or in other words, contentions raised by Sri.Dakshina Murthy, learned counsel appearing for appellant cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 10. Insofar as, merits of the case is concerned, it would clearly emerge from the orders of the original authority as affirmed by the appellate authority the statement of appellant recorded under Secti....