TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue fails to prove gold smuggling under Section 123, confiscation set aside due to lack of evidence</h1> <h3>Shri Shreyas Agarwal, Shri Dhan Kishore Agarwal, Shri Param Hans, Shri Anurag Jalan Versus Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata</h3> Shri Shreyas Agarwal, Shri Dhan Kishore Agarwal, Shri Param Hans, Shri Anurag Jalan Versus Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:1. Formation of reasonable belief u/s 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Evidence proving the gold bars/pieces were smuggled from Bangladesh.3. Reliance on retracted statements to establish guilt.4. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.Summary:Issue No. 1: Formation of Reasonable Belief u/s 123 of the Customs Act, 1962The Tribunal examined whether the presumption u/s 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, favored the Revenue. It was alleged that the appellants were involved in smuggling gold and silver from Bangladesh, leading to searches and recoveries. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in *Shri Balwant Raj Soni*, which emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Department, and the presumption u/s 123 does not apply if the gold is of Indian origin. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue did not have a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled, as there was no irrefutable evidence proving the gold's foreign origin.Issue No. 2: Evidence Proving Smuggling from BangladeshThe Tribunal scrutinized whether the evidence on record proved that the gold bars and pieces were smuggled from Bangladesh. The appellants produced invoices showing legal procurement from M/s Prithvi Gold. The Tribunal noted that the investigating authority did not verify the authenticity of these invoices. The appellants discharged their onus u/s 123 by providing valid documents. Thus, the Tribunal held that the evidence did not establish that the gold was smuggled.Issue No. 3: Reliance on Retracted StatementsThe Tribunal evaluated the reliance on retracted statements of the co-noticees to establish guilt. It referred to the judgment in *Shri Balwant Raj Soni*, which held that retracted statements cannot be the sole basis for establishing smuggling without independent corroboration. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied heavily on such statements without additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the retracted statements could not be used to prove the gold was smuggled.Issue No. 4: Imposition of PenaltiesGiven the lack of evidence proving smuggling, the Tribunal concluded that the gold was not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no penalties could be imposed on the appellants u/s 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the appellants successfully demonstrated the legal procurement of the gold, and the Revenue failed to prove smuggling. The gold was not liable for confiscation, and no penalties were imposable. The appeals were allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
