Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 5 Aug 2025

Shri Ritesh Soni vs Lucknow Prev

Legal principle

A carrier who, per his corroborated Section 108 statement, knowingly transports smuggled gold is liable to penalty under Section 112(b) even though he is neither the owner nor the claimant of the goods.

Court decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Rs.10,00,000 penalty on Ritesh Soni under Section 112(b), holding him liable for abetting the smuggling of gold, and did not interfere with the quantum of penalty.

Facts

On 22.02.2018 Customs (Varanasi) officers intercepted Ritesh Soni at Mughalsarai railway station and recovered 11,233.370 gm of foreign-origin gold (8 bars and 200 bangles, valued at Rs.3,44,63,006), concealed in two kamarbands and a trolley bag. In his Section 108 statement he admitted carrying smuggled gold for his uncle Prithviraj Tosawar, proprietor of two Kolkata jewellery firms, and admitted making similar deliveries in the past without any bills or import documents. Searches of the owner's premises yielded no documents, summons to the owner went unanswered, and call records showed frequent contact between the two. The gold and conveyances were confiscated under Sections 111(b)/(d) and 119, penalties of Rs.20,00,000 (owner) and Rs.10,00,000 (appellant) were imposed under Section 112(b), and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the appellant's penalty while remanding the owner's case for compliance with Section 138B.

Key provisions