Tribunal waives penalties for gold carriers, burden of proof on department

The Tribunal waived the deposit of penalties imposed on eight applicants stopped while carrying gold, citing the burden of proof on the department to prove smuggling, which they failed to do. Despite suspicions raised, discrepancies in documents were insufficient to dismiss the claim of legal acquisition, especially when sellers confirmed transactions. The Tribunal accepted the out of turn hearing request due to the substantial value of the confiscated gold, exceeding two crores, and instructed the department not to dispose of the gold until the appeal decision.

---

---

Issues:
Waiver of deposit of penalties imposed on eight applicants for carrying gold, burden of proof on department regarding smuggling, discrepancies in documents, mode of gold carriage leading to suspicion, application of Section 123 of the Act, out of turn hearing request.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with eight applicants who were stopped by the police while carrying gold and subsequently faced penalties imposed by the Commissioner along with confiscation of the gold. The applicants claimed that the gold was legally acquired, with some pieces released by the department itself. They argued that the burden of proving smuggling falls on the department, which they failed to discharge. They also cited a previous Tribunal order in a similar case where gold was released. The department, on the other hand, contended that the seizure was by customs officers, not the police, and highlighted discrepancies in documents and suspicious conduct of the applicants in carrying the gold.

The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the mode of gold carriage and the presence of the applicants, leading to suspicion. It discussed the availability of Section 123 of the Act to the department and questioned the actions of the police and customs officers during the incident. Despite suspicions raised, the Tribunal found it difficult to dismiss the claim of legal acquisition based on discrepancies in documents, especially when the sellers confirmed the transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the deposit of penalties imposed on the applicants and stayed their recovery.

Additionally, due to the substantial value of the confiscated gold, exceeding two crores, the Tribunal accepted the applicants' request for an out of turn hearing. The appeals were scheduled for a hearing, and the department was instructed not to dispose of the gold until the appeal decision was made.

---