Allowed

Sri Ratan Karmakar v. -Kolkata(Prev)

CESTAT23 Feb 2024C/75676/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal held that a penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling foreign currency could not stand on the sole basis of a third party's statement as no corroborative evidence from the appellant was recorded, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.10.00 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 is set aside.

Sri Ratan Karmakar vs -Kolkata(Prev) — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.1

¶3

Customs Appeal No.75676 of 2021

¶4

(On behalf of Appellant)

¶5

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.Kol/Cus(Prev.)/WB/AKR/309-310/2021 dated 18.03.2021 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Kolkata)

¶6

Shri Ratan Karmakar

¶7

(APC Roy Road, Vill.-Khagrabari, PO-Coochbihar, West Bengal-736101)

¶8

Appellant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata

¶11

(15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001)

¶12

Respondent

¶13

APPERANCE :

¶14

Shri R.N.Bandapadhyay, Authorised Representative for the Appellant Shri Tariq Sulaiman, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

¶15

CORAM:

¶16

HON’BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶17

FINAL ORDER NO.75343/2024

¶18

DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2024 DATE OF DECISION : 23.02.2024

¶19

Per Ashok Jindal :

¶20

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein a penalty of Rs.10.00 lakhs has been imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that the case of smuggling of foreign currency (U.S.Dollars) was booked by the Department against one Shri Sumon Gope. During the course of investigation, Shri Sumon Gope made a statement that he has taken delivery of dollars from Shri Mohit Sonkar to export it to the Bangladesh. On the basis of the statement of Shri Sumon Gope, who also made a statement that these foreign currency has been carried on behalf of the appellant. On the basis of

¶21

¶22

Customs Appeal No.75676/21

¶23

the statement of Shri Sumon Gope, the case has been made out against the appellant for exportation of foreign currency outside India. The currency recovered during the course of investigation was absolutely confiscated and penalty of Rs.10.00 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant on the basis of the statement of Shri Sumon Gope. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.

¶24

The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the case has been made out against the appellant on the basis of the statement of Shri Sumon Gope and one Shri Mohit Sonkar, but the appellant has never admitted that he was involved in any manner in relation to exportation of foreign currency outside India. In that circumstances, the penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant on the basis of the statement of third party. Therefore, it is prayed that the penalty imposed on the appellant be set aside.

¶25

On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the impugned order and submitted that as from the chain of evidences and act of the appellant, it has come out when the appellant as a co-noticee was involved in smuggling of foreign currency outside India, in that circumstances, penalty has rightly imposed on the appellant.

¶26

Heard both sides and considered the submissions.

¶27

I find that the penalty has been proposed to be imposed on the basis of statement Shri Sumon Gope, who stated that he has taken the currency from Shri Mohit Sonkar from Kolkata to deliver the same to the appellant. In the adjudication order, penalties on Shri Sumon Gope and Shri Mohit Sonkar were also imposed along with the appellant and in the case of Shri Mohit Sonkar, the penalty is dropped and the appeal

¶28

¶29

Customs Appeal No.75676/21

¶30

is allowed by this Tribunal vide Final Order No.75107/2024 dated 31.01.2024. I find that no corroborative statement of the appellant has been recorded by the Revenue. In that circumstances, the penalty on the appellant cannot be imposed on the basis of third party’s statement, therefore, I set aside the impugned order quo imposing penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside.

¶31

In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

¶32

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

¶33

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

¶34

Sri Ratan Karmakar v. -Kolkata(Prev)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ratan Karmakar v. -Kolkata(Prev)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswajit Das vs Shillong

Narendra Kumar Jain vs Shillong

Aks Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Kolkata(port)

Aks Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Kolkata(port)

Philips India Limited vs Cc Air Cargo Ch -Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo(Chennai VII )

Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs Commissioner, Customs (Import)-New Delhi(Icd Tkd)

Rohit Sharma vs Commissioner, Customs (Import)-New Delhi(Icd Tkd)

Lovy International vs Commissioner, Customs (Export)-New Delhi(Icd Tkd)