Case Details: Avinash Soni vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air Cargo), Kolkata (2025) 34 Centax 270 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- S/Shri Arnab Chakraborty, B.N. Pal, Advs., A.K. Manna, Consultant a/w. Sanjay Agarwal, Dhruvajyoti Roy, Pallav Roy Chowdhury, Smt. Champa Mukherjee, Satya Gopal Mallick, Faiz Ahmed, Authorised Representative, for the Appearing Parties.
Facts of the Case
The appellants in the present matter were exporters who had cleared a consignment of gold bangles for export under a shipping bill at NSCBI Airport. The consignment was handed over to a declared hand carrier for taking outside India but was diverted before loading, with the goods handed to another person in the domestic area. During the investigation, CCTV footage was not made available to verify the diversion, and statements initially relied upon were later retracted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Further, non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs) violated principles of natural justice. Despite procedural lapses, it was established that the goods were diverted before export. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the gold bangles covered under the export consignment were liable for confiscation under Section 113(k) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties under Section 114(iii) were imposable on the appellants but were to be reduced, while penalties under Section 114AA were not attracted, as the documents were not false or fabricated. The tribunal observed that diversion of goods before loading constituted a breach warranting confiscation despite procedural lapses by the Department. Accordingly, the appeal was partially allowed, confirming confiscation and limited penalties in favour of the Department.
List of Cases Cited
- Ajay Saraogi v. Union of India — 2023 (386) E.L.T. 333 (Cal.) = (2023) 10 Centax 76 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 23]
- Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner — 2017 (50) S.T.R. 93 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 23]
- Bikash Saha v. Commissioner — 2020 (371) E.L.T. 763 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 23]
- Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence — (2023) 3 Centax 250 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 23]
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Mahendera Kumar Singhal — 2016 (333) E.L.T. 250 (Del.) — Referred [Para 23]
- Jugeshwar Dayal v. Commissioner — 2001 (134) E.L.T. 253 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 23]
- Suaibo Ibow Casamma v. Union of India — 1995 (80) E.L.T. 762 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 23]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 27/2016-Cus., dated 10-6-2016 [Paras 18, 19, 20.1, 23]
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 30/2017-Cus., dated 18-7-2017 [Para 23]
- CBIC Instruction F. No. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC., dated 2-11-2023 [Para 23]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 57/2000-Cus., dated 8-5-2000 [Paras 18, 19, 20.1, 23, 38.4]
