TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (8) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eighing 239 grams and Indian currency worth Rs. 3,220/- were also recovered. Since, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence for their legal acquisition/possession etc., the said gold biscuits, Indian currency and gold ornaments were seized. The gold ornaments and the Indian currency were seized on the reasonable belief that these ornaments were manufactured out of the smuggled gold and the Indian currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold/gold ornaments. After show cause notice etc. was issued to the petitioner, the items which were seized were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asonable doubt ?" The Tribunal rejected the application vide order dated 20th October, 1987 (Annexure P.4). It is this order that has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had not seriously contended that questions of law Nos. (i), (ii) and (v) really arise for determination by this Court. However, he contended that question Nos. (iii) and (iv) do arise. The learned Counsel maintained that under Section 112 of the Customs Act, which deals with the penalty for improper importation of goods etc. the penalty can only be imposed if the person from whose possession the contraband item is recovered, knows or has reason to believe that the contraband item/items is/are liable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding five times the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods or five times the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or one thousand rupees, whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding five times the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five times the difference between the declared value." 4. The learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to me, the following questions do arise for determination by this Court :- 1) Whether for imposing penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, mere possession of an item, which is liable to confiscation under Section 111 is sufficient or there is further requirement that the person from whom such an item was recovered, had the knowledge or reason to believe that such an item was liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. 2) If the answer to Question No. 1 is in the affirmative, that it has to be shown that the person from whom an item to the type falling under Section 111 of the Customs Act is recovered, had the knowledge or reason to believe that such an item was liable to confiscation, then is it for the dep....