TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [the Commissioner] that imposes a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- upon the appellant under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 [the Customs Act]. 2. The appellant claims that he is an illiterate person and used to assist Bharat Shantilal Shah in his business activities. He had, therefore, to come from Mumbai to Delhi to transport and supply gold jewellery belonging to Bharat Shantilal Shah to different jewellers in Delhi. 3. On 19.01.2023, the appellant had come to pick Subhash Tukaram Karan, who was travelling from Mumbai to New Delhi by train. Subhash Tukaram Karan was intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] Officials at Hazrat Nizamudd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in English. The appellant further contents that though the signature of the appellant is appended on the statement typed in English but the appellant did not understand the contents of his statement. 4. During the personal search, 19 notes of one rupee denomination were found with the appellant and these notes were voluntarily submitted. In this context, the statement of appellant was recorded by the DRI to the effect that such one-rupee notes were used by the appellant in delivering the smuggled gold bars or jewellery made out of it, upon the instructions of Bharat Shantilal Shah. The appellant claims that such notes were collected by the appellant as they were in great demand in the market and could be sold at higher rates. 5. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Subhash Tukaram Karan and Sh. Sanjay Kumar intentionally and knowingly involved themselves in dealing, transporting, carrying of gold jewellery / articles made /manufactured from smuggled foreign origin gold for monetary consideration and thus, rendered themselves liable for penalty under Section 112 (b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962." 9. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Subas Chandra Acharya and Mr. Vaibhav Jain, made the following submissions: (i) The penalty levied upon the appellant under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act is perverse and bad in law as nothing incriminating was found from the possession of the appellant; (ii) The pre-requisite condition for imposing penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. This is what was held by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Raipur [Excise Appeal No. 51148 of 2020 decided on 01.04.2025] 13. This apart, during the personal search of the appellant, only 19 notes of one rupee denomination were found with the appellant. The pre-requisite condition to impose penalty under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act is that the goods are liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act. The penalty levied upon the appellant under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained as nothing incrim....