S. JAMAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 25 -6 -2012 in Appeal No. C/271 of 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The appellant and one Ambalam Khaja, were issued show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 stating that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on specific information regarding smuggling of costly computer parts and electronic goods intercepted Ambalam Khaja, a passenger who arrived from Singapore at the Anna International Airport, Chennai. On a search conducted in the baggage, it was found to contain Cellphones and Electronic goods worth Rs. 11,71,600/ - and the same were recovered under a Mahazar dated 17 -9 -2000 on a reasonable belief that the above said goods were smuggled into India in violation of the Customs Act, 1962. After recording a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, not only from the said passenger -Ambalam Khaja but also from the appellant, the authority issued show cause notice calling upon the passenger as to why the goods brought from Singapore on 17 -9 -2000 valued at Rs. 11,71,600/ - without declaring it properly and seized thereafter, should not be confiscated under Sections 111(d), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sections 11 and 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on the passenger as well as the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant submitted his explanation and the Original Authority, after considering the entire factual details directed confiscation of the goods and allowed Ambalam Khaja to redeem goods on payment of fine of Rs. 3,40,000/ - together with the appropriate duty payable and in respect of other set of goods, they were also confiscated and allowed to redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,45,000/ - together with the appropriate duty payable. The Original Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ - on both the passenger as well as on the appellant and the penalty was imposed on the passenger under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order, both the passenger as well as the appellant filed appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT, found that it is not a case where any interference is called for and confirmed the penalty imposed. Similarly, the levy of redemption fine was also confirmed. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and seeks admission of the appeal on the following question of law: -

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue while supporting the order passed by the CESTAT, submitted that non -mentioning of the specific clause of the Customs Act in the show cause notice will not stand as a bar when charges were detailed in the show cause notice in clear terms. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the Tribunal in the case of Fortune Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta reported in : 2001 (138) E.L.T. 556 (Tri. -Kolkata).