Smuggling of 3kg Gold Concealed in Shoes via Airport Staff :CESTAT Reduces Penalty From ₹30L to ₹10L Citing Limited Role [Read Order]

The Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reduces the penalty from ₹30 lakh to ₹10 lakh in a gold smuggling case involving 3 kg of gold concealed in shoes with the help of airport staff, citing the assessee’s limited role.

Suvadeep Dutta,appellant-assessee,was implicated in a gold smuggling case after Avijit Sarkar was caught at Kolkata Airport on 14.01.2015 by Customs officials. Acting on intelligence about ground staff involvement, officers recovered four gold bars weighing 3,000 grams and worth ₹82.5 lakh from Sarkar’s shoes.

In his statement, Sarkar admitted he was offered ₹10,000 by Ajit, an employee of the Airport Authority of India, to smuggle the gold. He said the assessee gave him a pair of shoes containing the gold and explained the smuggling plan along with Ajit.

Ajit also confirmed in his statement that the assessee had arranged for Sarkar to collect the gold. Ajit further revealed that he had received passenger details for another smuggling attempt, which led to the recovery of 5 kg gold from a passenger arriving from Dubai on 17.01.2015.

Following investigation, a show cause notice was issued, and the Customs authority ordered absolute confiscation of the seized gold. A penalty of ₹30 lakh was imposed on the assessee under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. This penalty was later upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 17.07.2019.

A single member bench of K.Anpazhakan ( Technical Member) examined the appeal and found that it related to the penalty imposed on Suvadeep Dutta under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

It was noted that 3 kg of gold was recovered from Avijit Sarkar at Kolkata Airport on 14.01.2015. Sarkar admitted he was asked by the appellant and Ajit Kumar Majhi to smuggle the gold in exchange for ₹10,000. He said he received the gold from a passenger arriving from Bangkok and concealed it in shoes given by the assessee.

Statements from both Sarkar and Ajit confirmed the assessee's involvement. Ajit stated that the plan was made in advance and the appellant was present during the discussions. Call records showed frequent contact between the assessee and Ajit, contradicting the assessee’s claim that he was not involved.

The tribunal also noted that the assessee avoided appearing before Customs despite being summoned and only appeared after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected.

The adjudicating authority had earlier imposed a ₹30 lakh penalty. The appellate tribunal agreed that the assessee was involved but found the penalty excessive. It reduced the penalty to ₹10 lakh, considering the extent of his role.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates