CHANDER PRAKASH VERMA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereafter referred to as "the Act"], the appellant challenges an order dated 16.05.2017, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal"], whereby the Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed upon him by the customs authorities in respect of smuggling of 18 kilograms of gold into India.

(2.) At the time of admission of the present appeal, the following question of law was framed by this Court:

(3.) The appellant was served with a Show Cause Notice [hereafter referred to as "SCN"] dated 20.05.2014, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [hereafter referred to as "DRI"]. It was contended in the SCN that on 22.11.2013, at 11:30 hours the officials of the DRI, acting on intelligence, had observed three persons attempting to remove the inside pad from the door of a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle [hereafter referred to as "the said vehicle"] parked at Shroff Charitable Hospital, Delhi. It was contended that the appellant was one of these three people and that the pad of the door was being removed to retrieve a consignment of 17 gold bars of 1 kg., each from Nepal, which was concealed therein. Three other persons were seated in the said vehicle. One additional gold bar of 1 kg. was subsequently recovered from one of the seats pursuant to a statement made by one of the persons alleged to have been involved. It was further alleged that the appellant was the owner of a jewellery shop and had procured the gold from a contact in Nepal in contravention of the Act. The gold bars were stated to have been valued independently at Rs.5,56,92,000/- and were seized by the DRI, along with the said vehicle. The appellant and the others involved were summoned and their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act. He is stated to have admitted the allegations against him. The intercepted persons were also arrested under Section 104 of the Act and were released on bail by an order of the competent Court dated 07.12.2013. When he was produced before the Magistrate, the appellant retracted the statement made to the customs authorities, stating that he had been coerced into making it.