The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upholds the Confiscation of a Mercedes Car which used for smuggling of Gold bar.
Shri Sunny Kakkar, the appellant challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi whereby he confiscated 8 gold bars of 1 kg. each of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1,84,16,505.68 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 which were seized from the possession of the appellant.
He also confiscated the Mercedes car bearing registration No. DL ICQ 7525 seized from the appellant under Section 115(2) which was registered in the name of M/s PRK Diamonds Pvt. Ltd and allowed it redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.10,00,000/-. The penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) (i) and a penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- on Shri Ahadees under Section 112(a)(i).
It was evident that the transaction took place in the car at Rajeev Chowk, Metro Station and when the officers tried to stop it the appellant asked his driver to speed away but failed. The car and the gold were brought to the office of DRI by the Panchnama was dropped in the parking lot.
The Mercedes car was seized from the appellant himself. He is also the Director of the company M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd which is owned by the appellant and his wife. It has been argued that the owner of the car M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. has not been served with a notice and, therefore, the confiscation is not legal.
On a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel fairly submits that M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. is the company owned by the appellant and his wife although it is a separate legal entity. It was noticed by the Tribunal that there is no appeal by M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. pleading that the car is released to it.
Since the show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the car, we find no force in the argument that notice should have been issued to M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. It is not open to the appellant to represent M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. to seek release of the car but claim that he does not represent M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. when it comes to receiving show cause notice and answering it. The car was allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. We are of the considered opinion that this is a reasonable amount of redemption fine imposed if the appellant chooses to redeem the car.
A Coram comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and P V Subba Rao, Member (Technical)while upholding the penalty and codification observed that as per Section 112(b) any person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111 is liable to a penalty.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
