2026-VIL-1168-CESTAT-KOL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs Act – Levy of penalty for possession and harbouring of smuggled goods –Whether the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for being concerned with the keeping, harbouring and dealing of goods liable to confiscation – HELD - Although the gold was recovered from the godown premises and not from the physical person of the appellant, the records clearly reveal that the appellant was found in charge of the premises at the relevant time and had access to and control over the godown from where the contraband was recovered. The complete absence of licit documents, the nature and purity of the seized goods, and the appellant's inability to offer any plausible explanation regarding the source and lawful possession thereof establish his culpability. Gold is a notified commodity under Section 123 of the Act, and once recovery of notified goods is established from premises under the possession, custody or control of a person, the burden shifts upon such person to establish the licit nature of possession, which burden remained wholly undischarged. The recovery of a substantial quantity of gold from premises under his control, coupled with the complete absence of licit documents and the attendant circumstances brought out during investigation, justify the conclusion that the appellant was concerned with the keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation under the Act. However, considering that the seized gold did not bear any foreign markings and the statements relied upon by the Department were not subjected to the evidentiary safeguards contemplated under Section 138B of the Customs Act, the penalty is reduced substantially to serve the ends of justice – The appeal is partly allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page