Suvadeep Dutta Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
Conclusion: Penalty was imposed on assessee under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for a gold smuggling case of 3kg concealed in shoes via Airport Staff as mere denial could not absolve him of the crime committed at his initiation however, the penalty was reduced from ₹30L to ₹10L.
Held: Assessee was implicated in a gold smuggling case after Avijit Sarkar was caught at Kolkata Airport 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 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. 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). It was held that 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. Assessee mere denial could not absolve him of the crime committed at his initiation. Call records showed frequent contact between the assessee and Ajit, contradicting the assessee’s claim that he was not involved. tribunal also noted that assessee avoided appearing before Customs despite being summoned and only appeared after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected. Adjudicating authority had earlier imposed a ₹30 lakh penalty. Appellate Tribunal agreed that assessee was involved but found the penalty excessive. It reduced the penalty to ₹10 lakh, considering the extent of his role.
