2024 (2) TMI 1143 - AT - Customs

Case Remanded for Reassessment: Cross-Examination of Witnesses Allowed in Gold Bars Confiscation Dispute.

The Tribunal remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority, directing it to reassess the absolute confiscation of 12 gold bars and associated penalties. ... Confiscation of the gold and imposed penalties on various noticee - activity of buying and selling of gold and jewellery -legitimate Or Not - Seized 12 gold bars weighing 11990.82 gms - HELD THAT:- In this particular case, it is seen from the records that no such opportunity was given to the Appellant though they have made specific request to this effect. Therefore, we find that principles of natural justice has not been followed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant has produced voluminous records of their ledgers, invoices, copies of Banking transactions etc. to prove that they were carrying legitimate activity of buying and selling of gold and jwellery. These documents have to be properly verified before any conclusion can be arrived at as to whether the seized Golds have the backing of proper licit documents or not. Therefore, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with the following directions - After following the principles of natural justice, the Adjudicating Authority will pass a considered decision. Issues involved: Seizure of gold bars, absolute confiscation, imposition of penalties, violation of principles of natural justice.Summary:In the present case, 12 gold bars were seized on a specific date and the Adjudicating Authority ordered for absolute confiscation of the gold and imposed penalties on the involved parties. The Appellants challenged this decision before the Tribunal, claiming that they were engaged in legitimate business activities supported by documentary evidence such as invoices, ledger copies, and banking transaction details. They argued that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider their evidence properly and failed to entertain their request for cross-examination of certain individuals whose statements were relied upon. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Respondent contended that the Appellants did not provide sufficient documentary evidence for the movement of the goods and failed to meet the requirements of the Customs Act, 1962. Upon hearing both sides and examining the documentary evidence, the Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority did not follow the principles of natural justice by not allowing the cross-examination requested by the Appellants. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants had submitted extensive records to support their claim of engaging in legitimate gold trading activities, which needed proper verification before reaching a conclusion on the legality of the seized gold. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with specific directions. These directions included allowing the cross-examination requested by the Appellants and requiring the production of all documentary evidence supporting the claim that the seized gold was part of their regular commercial transactions. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to make a considered decision within four months, following the principles of natural justice.