2007 (10) TMI 520 - AT - Customs

Tribunal orders release of gold bars and car to appellant, finds items legally imported and duty paid.

JAYANTI S. JAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJ.), MUMBAI

JAYANTI S. JAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJ.), MUMBAI - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 284 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the confiscation of 84 gold bars.2. Legality of the confiscation of the maroon-colored Fiat car.3. Ownership and claim of the gold bars by the appellant.4. Consideration of evidence and documents submitted by the appellant.5. Legal standing and implications of the compromise petition filed by the appellant and NRIs.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the confiscation of 84 gold bars:The customs authorities seized 84 gold bars from a maroon-colored Fiat car, suspecting them to be smuggled into India in violation of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of these gold bars under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, citing that the gold was a prohibited item and thus liable for confiscation. However, the appellant contested this decision, arguing that the gold was legally imported and duty paid by two NRIs, who had executed powers of attorney in favor of her late husband, Shri Sohanlal K. Jain. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the factual matrix and the evidence provided, including Customs DDRs, State Bank of India receipts, and powers of attorney, which indicated that the gold was legally imported and duty paid. Consequently, the tribunal held that the absolute confiscation of the gold bars was incorrect and set it aside.2. Legality of the confiscation of the maroon-colored Fiat car:The Fiat car, used for the concealment and transportation of the gold bars, was also ordered to be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the tribunal held that the gold bars were legally imported and not liable for confiscation, the basis for confiscating the car as a conveyance used for smuggling was invalid. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the confiscation of the car as well.3. Ownership and claim of the gold bars by the appellant:The appellant, Smt. Jayanti S. Jain, claimed ownership of the gold bars as the wife of Late Shri Sohanlal K. Jain, who was the power of attorney holder for the two NRIs who imported the gold. The tribunal acknowledged her claim, noting that the NRIs had executed powers of attorney in favor of her late husband and that she had fulfilled the NRIs' claims by purchasing equivalent gold from the market and handing it over to them. The tribunal directed the release of the confiscated gold bars to the appellant or, if sold, the payment of their market value at the time of seizure along with interest.4. Consideration of evidence and documents submitted by the appellant:The appellant provided several documents, including Customs DDRs, State Bank of India receipts, and powers of attorney, to support her claim that the gold was legally imported and duty paid. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had not properly considered these documents and the factual matrix, leading to an incorrect conclusion. The tribunal emphasized the importance of these documents in establishing the legality of the gold's importation and the appellant's claim.5. Legal standing and implications of the compromise petition filed by the appellant and NRIs:The tribunal considered the compromise petition filed by the appellant and the NRIs in a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petition indicated that the appellant had settled the NRIs' claims by purchasing equivalent gold from the market. The tribunal found this settlement significant in establishing the appellant's claim to the confiscated gold bars. The tribunal noted that the appellant's responsibility and commitment, as acknowledged in the compromise petition, reinforced her claim to the gold bars.Conclusion:The tribunal set aside the absolute confiscation of the 84 gold bars and the maroon-colored Fiat car, directing their release to the appellant, Smt. Jayanti S. Jain. If the gold bars and car had been sold, the authorities were ordered to pay the market value at the time of seizure along with interest. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.