Gold Confiscation Review Dismissed: Tribunal's Redemption Decision Upheld, No Error Found in Allowing Fine Payment.

The court dismissed the review application challenging the CESTAT, Allahabad's decision, which upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing the redemption of confiscated smuggled gold upon payment of a fine. The court found no error in the Tribunal's judgment, as the gold was not considered a prohibited good under the law. The Tribunal's decision to permit redemption was within its authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The appellant's arguments regarding the absolute confiscation of gold and foreign currency were not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of the review for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad correctly upheld the order dated 27.08.2018 by the Commissioner (Appeals) without addressing the findings of the Adjudicating Authority on absolute confiscation of smuggled gold and foreign currency.
2. Whether the CESTAT, Allahabad correctly allowed the release of smuggled gold on redemption of fine and reduced the redemption fine.

Summary:

Issue 1: Upholding the Order Without Addressing Findings on Absolute Confiscation

The review application was filed to contest the judgment dated 06.07.2022 in Customs Appeal No. 7 of 2019. The appeal challenged the order dated 13.02.2019 by CESTAT, Allahabad, which dismissed the Customs Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow against the order dated 27.08.2018 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, GST and Central Excise, Lucknow. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the respondents to redeem confiscated gold upon payment of a fine. The substantial question of law was whether the Tribunal correctly upheld the order without addressing the Adjudicating Authority's findings on absolute confiscation of smuggled gold and foreign currency.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel confined submissions to this question. The Court found that nothing was presented to prove the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that gold is not a 'prohibited good' was wrong. Thus, the Court concluded that the Adjudicating Authority's order for confiscation without considering that gold is not prohibited was erroneous. The Tribunal did not err in upholding the order for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

The review sought correction on grounds that neither Section 2(33) of the Act nor relevant case laws were considered. The Court, however, found that the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal's findings that gold is not prohibited were unchallenged. Thus, the decision did not suffer from apparent errors.

Issue 2: Release of Smuggled Gold on Redemption Fine

The appellant did not press this question during the hearing. The Court noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal had both held that the import of gold was not prohibited under any law, thus not warranting absolute confiscation. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow redemption upon payment of a fine, which was within their powers under Section 128A of the Act.

The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the further appeal by the Department. The review application was dismissed for lack of merit, as the original order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.

---