TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 937
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O SAMBRE, J. 1. Heard the respective counsels at length. 2. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 30th March, 2022 passed by the Government of India in exercise of revisional jurisdiction confirming the order dated 13th February, 2019 and 5thAugust, 2020. 3. Vide the order impugned dated 13th February, 2019, the respondents have passed the following order against the petitioner, which reads thus: "30. In view of the foregoing, I pass the following order: (i) I deny the free allowance of Sh. Salil Puri on accounts of various omission and commission done by him as discussed supra. (ii) I order confiscation of seized gold total weighing 999 gms valued at Rs. 26,12,855/- (Rupees Twenty six lakh twelve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already been cleared illegally. (vii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 16,00,000/-(Rupees Sixteen lakh only) on the Noticee 2 i.e. Sh. Gautam Jain under Section 112(a) & 112(b), 114, 114A, 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export & Import of Currency) Regulations, 1999. (vii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) on the Noticee 3 i.e. Sh. Raman Kumar under Section 112(a) & 112(b), 114, 114A; 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export & Import of Currency) Regulations, 1999." 4. The Order in Original dated 13th February, 2019 was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning the legality and sustainability of the orders impugned, are that the material to connect the petitioner for the purpose of passing the impugned order cannot be said to be sufficient enough. 7. Drawing support from the provisions of Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, he would urge that the said provisions are not applicable to the facts of case in hand. Apart from above, his contentions are that the penalty is imposed at an exorbitant rate. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel has drawn support from the very decision of the respondent, in the matter of not only permitting redemption in favour of the passenger, wherein he was permitted to re-export the gold which was smuggled by him, but also th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2017 and 11th April, 2018, were found to be consistent. In the said statements, it is specifically stated that upon directions of Mr. Raman Kumar, a money exchanger, the currency was delivered to the petitioner and the said currency used to be handed over to the noticee no. 1 in Dubai by representative of the present petitioner. 13. Apart from above, other noticee viz. Mr. Raman Kumar in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act has also implicated the present petitioner. In his statement, he has specifically stated that the noticee no. 1, Mr. Salil Puri, offered deal to exchange Indian Rupee to US Dollars and the US Dollars were directed to be delivered to the petitioner by the noticee no. 1, Mr. Salil Puri, and to receive th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.16 lakhs under Section 112(a) & 112(b), 114, 114A, 114AA and 117 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export & Import of Currency) Regulations, 1999. 18. The entire material on record demonstrates that the petitioner in relation to the goods in question was found to be involved in the act which renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111. 19. Apart from the above, the intention of the petitioner was to purchase the goods and/or deal with them in any other manner, knowing that they were liable for confiscation. 20. The petitioner has attempted to export the goods improperly which has rightly prompted not only the levy of penalty under Section 114A, but also under Section 114AA o....