TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ata has imposed a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Gagan Karel (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") for his alleged act of abetting the smuggling of gold and his indulgence in dealing with smuggled gold. 2. The facts of the case are that 58 pieces of gold biscuits and bars and about half a piece of biscuit having a total weight of 10.54855kgs. collectively valued at Rs.2,85,86,569/- was seized from Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav on 16.06.2015. 2.1. In his statement, Shri Pawan Prasad has stated that on earlier four occasions, he had delivered a portion of the gold carried by him to one Shri Gagan Karel (Appellant). It was also st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-examination must have been given to the Appellant. The Appellant also submits that it is on record that only one opportunity of cross-examination was granted, on 19.12.2016, and thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 31.03.2017 without giving another opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant contends that the statements recorded from Shri. Pawan Prasad and Ms. Monica Yadav cannot be relied upon to arrive at any adverse conclusion against him. Thus, the appellant submits that imposition of penalty on him on the basis of the statements given by the co-accused viz. Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav is not sustainable. 3.1. The Appellant also contends that there is no other corroborative evidence on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be invoked against the Appellant for imposing penalty. 3.3. In view of the above, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed on him. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We find that 58 pieces of gold biscuits and bars and about half a piece of biscuit having a total weight of 10.54855 kgs. collectively valued at Rs.2,85,86,569/- was seized from Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav on 16.06.2015. It is alleged that a part of the smuggled gold was supposed to be sold to Shri Gagan Karel, as per the statement recorded from Shri Pawan Prasad. We observe that except the statement dated 16.06.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatements of Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav cannot be relied upon against the Appellant, without any other corroborative evidence to support the allegations. 7. We have gone through the findings recorded by the ld. adjudicating authority in the impugned order regarding the role played by the Appellant in the alleged offence. From the findings of the ld. adjudicating authority, we observe that except the statements of Shri Pawan Prasad and Smt. Monika Yadav, there is no other corroborative evidence to establish the role of the Appellant in the alleged offence. 8. Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with penalty for improper importation of goods, is reproduced below:- "SECTION 112. Penalty for improper im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty [not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be ev....