ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The appeal is against the captioned order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai.
2. The facts of the case are that, as a result of search of baggage of the passenger called Shri Gangareddy Gangaram who arrived from Dubai at Sahar airport, Mumbai on 23-7-1987, resulted in the recovery of foreign marked gold in the form of 50 gold bars weighing 5830 gms. The gold bars were recovered from the suit case being carried by Shri Gangareddy Gangaram. In his statement following the seizure, Shri Gangareddy Gangaram stated that the gold bars were given to him at Dubai by the appellant and he had carried the same for a consideration as the carrier for Rs. 4,000/- to be paid to him. He also identified a photograph of the appellant as the man who had given the gold to him at Dubai. It also emerges from the statement of the carrier that the appellant was introduced to Gangareddy through One Rajanna in Dubai. Rajanna’s telephone number was recovered from the carrier and that number is said to be the contact number of the appellant at Dubai. In the proceedings that were initiated, the Addl. Commissioner confiscated the gold and imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellant against which the present appeal has been filed.
3. The appellant is not present when the matter is called, but has requested for decision on merits. It has been submitted by the appellant that he is not concerned with the smuggling of the gold but has been wrongly implicated. The mere use of the telephone will not be an evidence to find the appellant liable for penalty, accordingly. The appellant has also referred to the verdict of the court which exonerated him, in the appeal. He has pleaded that he is now very sick and that the penalty may be set aside.
4. The ld. Departmental representative referred to the reasonings in the impugned order and pointed out that there is sufficient evidence on record like identification of the appellant by the carrier of the gold and recovery of the telephone number which was used by the appellant in Dubai, for justifying the penalty imposed on him.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that the carrier of the gold from whom suitcase was recovered has named the appellant as the person who had given the gold bars to him at Dubai and he was carrying the gold for a consideration on behalf of the appellant. The statement has further supported by the evidence of the carrier identifying the appellant from a photograph shown to him. The recovery from the carrier of the contact number of the appellant in Dubai is also a sufficient evidence pointing to the involvement of the appellant in the offence. In these circumstances, we find that sufficient evidence exists to penalise the appellant under Section 112 in the departmental adjudication and it is well settled that the degree of proof as required in such adjudication is not as the same in prosecution in court of law. Therefore, we are of the view that the penalty on the appellant is correct in law. However, considering the plea of the appellant before us, we hold that a lower personal penalty may meet the ends of justice. The penalty is accordingly, reduced from Rs. One lakh to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The appeal is otherwise rejected.