Gold Biscuit Smuggle Worth Rs. 31 Lakh: CESTAT Reduces Penalty Treating Assessee as Mere Carrier [Read Order]
The tribunal, noting lack of evidence showing him as the beneficiary and relying on precedent, reduced the penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act from ₹3.13 lakh to ₹1 lakh.
![Gold Biscuit Smuggle Worth Rs. 31 Lakh: CESTAT Reduces Penalty Treating Assessee as Mere Carrier [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/27/2055184-gold-biscuit-smuggle-taxscan.webp "Gold Biscuit Smuggle Worth Rs. 31 Lakh: CESTAT Reduces Penalty Treating Assessee as Mere Carrier [Read Order]")
The Kolkata Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reduced the penalty imposed on the assessee for smuggling gold biscuits worth ₹31.34 lakh, treating him as a mere carrier. Shri Nirbhay Kumar Upadhyay,appellant-assessee,was intercepted by Customs officers at Imphal on 19.04.2019 based on specific intelligence. On search, six foreign-marked...
The Kolkata Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reduced the penalty imposed on the assessee for smuggling gold biscuits worth ₹31.34 lakh, treating him as a mere carrier.
Shri Nirbhay Kumar Upadhyay,appellant-assessee,was intercepted by Customs officers at Imphal on 19.04.2019 based on specific intelligence. On search, six foreign-marked gold biscuits weighing 996 grams were recovered from his body cavity. He failed to produce any valid documents to prove legal ownership.
Lab tests confirmed high purity of the gold. In his statement, he admitted to concealing the gold in his rectum to avoid detection. The authorities seized the gold under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty of ₹3,13,000 under Section 112(b)(i).
The adjudicating authority confiscated the gold worth ₹31.34 lakh and imposed a penalty of ₹3.13 lakh. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The assessee filed the present appeal against the penalty.
Understand the complete process and tax nuances of GST refunds, Click here
The assessee counsel stated that the assessee was not the beneficiary of the seized gold and had only acted as a carrier for a small amount due to financial hardship. He requested a lenient view on the penalty, citing a similar case where the tribunal had reduced the penalty.
The department argued that the gold was hidden in the body cavity, showing clear involvement in smuggling. It supported the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and requested that it be upheld.
A single member bench comprising K.Anpazhakan (Technical Member) considered both sides and reviewed the records. It noted that the assessee was caught with six gold biscuits weighing 996 grams and valued at ₹31.34 lakh, hidden in his body. He admitted to carrying the gold and claimed he did so for a small amount due to financial hardship, acting only as a carrier and not as the owner.
The appellate tribunal observed that there was no evidence to show he was the actual beneficiary. Since he did not challenge the confiscation and only sought a reduction in penalty, the tribunal found it appropriate to take a lenient view.
Relying on an earlier case with similar facts, the CESTAT reduced the penalty from ₹3.13 lakh to ₹1 lakh.
Therefore,the appeal was disposed of.
Complete Guide to Reassessment: Comprehensive Topic-wise Analysis, Circulars, Case Laws & Practical Insights, Click here
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
