2025-VIL-1391-CESTAT-HYD-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Sections 111(b), 112(a), 112(b) and 123 of Customs Act, 1962 – Confiscation of seized gold – Imposition of penalty – DRI officers intercepted Appellants and recovered gold biscuits from them – Officers seized gold biscuits under Section 111 of the Act under reasonable belief that same were smuggled one – Adjudicating authority ordered for confiscation of seized gold under Section 111(b) of the Act and imposed penalties on Appellant under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether order of confiscation of seized gold is sustainable – HELD – Assumption and presumption that goods are smuggling one cannot be the basis for confiscation. Smuggled nature of goods should be proved by Revenue by producing affirmative and tangible evidence. There is no foreign marking on biscuits recovered from Appellants. Appellant have produced his income details and CA certificate as an evidence of source of income for procurement of subject gold. Appellants proved their onus as required by Section 123 of the Act. Department failed to produce punch witnesses for cross examination as requested by Appellants. Denial of cross-examination of punch witnesses is violation of natural justice. Department has failed to establish a reasonable belief that seized gold is smuggled, whereas, Appellants concerned established that gold was not smuggled and they had been procured by licit means. Confiscation of gold and imposing of penalty are not sustainable. Order under challenge is set aside – Appeals allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page