2025-VIL-1138-CESTAT-KOL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1138-CESTAT-KOL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(ii), 115(2), 121 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962 – Seizure of currency – Absolute confiscation – On basis of intelligence, Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted Appellants and seized gold bars and Indian currency from them – On completion of investigation, department issued show cause notice to Appellants, proposing confiscation of gold bars and Indian currency seized from Appellants, along with imposition of penalties on all Appellants. Show cause notice also proposed for confiscation of vehicle used in alleged smuggling activities – Adjudicating authority confirmed proposals made in show cause notice – Whether order of absolute confiscation of Indian currency is sustainable – HELD – Indian currency was seized from possession of Appellant Nos.1 and 2 by alleging same to be sale proceeds of smuggled gold. Department has failed to adduce any single evidence to establish that there was any sale of gold, that too of smuggled gold, or that Indian currency seized were sale proceeds of smuggled gold. As there is no evidence available on record to establish that seized Indian currency were sale proceeds of smuggled gold, said currency is not liable for confiscation. Order of confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Act is set aside, and currency is ordered to be released to Appellant Nos.1 and 2 – Appeals disposed of - Imposition of penalties – Whether penalties imposed on Appellants under Sections 112(a)(i) and 112(b)(ii) of the Act are legally sustainable or not – HELD – Gold bearing foreign marking has been seized from possession of Appellant Nos.1 and 4. As per Section 123 of the Act, responsibility is cast on person who is found to be in possession of such gold to provide evidence as to legal purchase of gold. Appellant Nos.1 and 4 have failed to produce any documents for legal purchase of gold, hence, penalties have been rightly imposed on these Appellants. Penalties imposed on Appellant Nos.1 and 4 under Sections 112(a)(i) and 112(b)(ii) of the Act are upheld – In regard to penalties imposed on Appellant Nos.2 and 3, it is observed that these Appellants have not committed any offence in connection with smuggling of gold, in fact, no gold has been seized from these Appellants. Penalties imposed on Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are not sustainable and accordingly, set aside - Confiscation of vehicle – Whether department has produced any evidence regarding usage of confiscated vehicle in relation to any smuggling activities – HELD – Vide impugned order, Maruti Alto car has been confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Act with an option for redemption of same on payment of redemption fine in lieu of such confiscation. As there is no evidence regarding usage of said vehicle in relation to any smuggling activities, confiscation of Maruti Alto car is not warranted and hence, set aside. Consequently, imposition of redemption fine in lieu of such confiscation is also set aside.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

VILGST-TAX CONNECT WEBINAR
19th July 2025

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?