CESTAT Tribunal Overturns Silver Seizure: Lack of Evidence, Section 123 Not Applicable

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI allowed two appeals against the seizure of 11 kg of silver, comprising 10 silver bars, suspected of being smuggled from Pakistan. Penalties were imposed based on inculpatory statements retracted by the appellants, who also presented purchase bills. The tribunal considered the small quantity of silver, lack of substantial evidence beyond the retracted statements, and the application of Section 123, which pertains to cases involving 100 kgs of silver or more. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant(s) due to insufficient justification for the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Seizure of silver, confiscation on grounds of smuggling, penalties imposed, evidence from inculpatory statements, retraction of statements, purchase bills produced, application of Section 123, quantity of silver involved, lack of evidence beyond statements.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI involved two appeals against the same impugned Order-in-Appeal regarding the seizure of 11 kg of silver in the form of 10 silver bars, confiscated on suspicion of being smuggled from Pakistan, with penalties imposed on the appellants. The main contention raised was the lack of evidence beyond the inculpatory statements made by the appellants immediately after the seizure, which were later retracted. The appellants also produced purchase bills to support their claim. Reference was made to the instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs regarding the application of Section 123, which specifies cases involving 100 kgs of silver or more. The tribunal noted the small quantity of silver involved, the individual pieces weighing about 1 kg each, and the absence of substantial evidence other than the retracted statements. In light of these factors, the tribunal concluded that the proceedings were not justified, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant(s). The judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and adherence to procedural instructions in such cases.

---