Tribunal overturns confiscation of gold bar and penalty, citing lack of evidence

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal against the confiscation of a gold bar and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000. Discrepancies in evidence, including conflicting versions of how the gold bar was recovered and lack of tangible proof of foreign origin, led to the conclusion that neither confiscation nor penalty were justified under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per law.

---

---

Issues: Confiscation of goods (gold bar) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000

In this case, the appellant contested the confiscation of a gold bar and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000. The Customs Officers raided the appellant's premises and allegedly recovered the gold bar. However, there were discrepancies in the evidence presented. The Assistant Commissioner who headed the raiding party lodged a complaint against the appellant and his wife, but it was dismissed by the Court. The appellant's wife filed a counter complaint alleging molestation. The Panchnama did not bear the Assistant Commissioner's signature, and the person who signed it did not go inside the premises. Different members of the raiding party gave conflicting versions of how the gold bar was recovered. There was no tangible evidence to prove the foreign origin and smuggled character of the gold bar, as it did not bear any foreign marks and was found to be of 23 carats instead of 24 carats upon examination. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that neither the confiscation of the gold bar nor the imposition of the penalty could be justified under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential relief, as per law.

---