2000 (12) TMI 175 - AT - Customs

Appeals Won: Silver Confiscation Reversed Due to Doubts

RAM BINOY PRASAD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA

RAM BINOY PRASAD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 721 (Tri. - Kolkata), 2001 (43) RLT 234 (CEGAT - Kol) Issues:Confiscation of silver, imposition of penalties, legality of seizure, validity of statements, foreign origin of silver, evidence rebuttal, date of seizure, weight of silver bars, government instructions on silver bullion seizure.Confiscation of Silver and Imposition of Penalties:The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from the confiscation of silver valued at Rs. 1.54 lakh and imposition of penalties. The silver was recovered from two appellants traveling in a bus, allegedly on behalf of the third appellant. The appellants failed to produce legal importation documents, leading to seizure. The original adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalties. The learned Consultant argued against the foreign origin of the silver and challenged the voluntariness of statements by the two employees. The absence of foreign markings on the silver and doubts raised over the truthfulness of statements favored the appellants. Additionally, evidence presented by the appellants regarding the intended delivery of silver to Varanasi was not rebutted by the Revenue, further supporting the appellants' case.Legality of Seizure and Validity of Statements:The judgment scrutinizes the legality of the seizure and the validity of statements given by the two employees. The appellants contended that the statements were extracted under duress, supported by an Injury Report indicating injuries. The absence of foreign markings on the silver and doubts over the voluntariness of statements cast uncertainty on the Revenue's case. The Jail Doctor's Injury Report raised questions about the authenticity of the statements, shifting the weight of the case in favor of the appellants.Foreign Origin of Silver and Evidence Rebuttal:The issue of the foreign origin of the silver was pivotal in the judgment. The statements of the employees claimed the silver was of third country origin, but the absence of foreign markings on the silver raised doubts. The appellants' evidence regarding the intended delivery of silver to Varanasi and the production of supporting documents remained unrebutted by the Revenue, strengthening the appellants' position. The judgment emphasized the necessity for the Revenue to establish foreign origin in cases of notified goods under Section 123.Date of Seizure and Weight of Silver Bars:The discrepancy in the date of seizure raised concerns regarding the correctness of the time and place of seizure. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the date-difference as inconsequential, but the judgment disagreed, stating that such discrepancies should benefit the appellants. Furthermore, the weight of the silver bars, totaling 22 Kgs., fell below the threshold specified by government instructions for seizure without foreign markings, which further undermined the justification for confiscation and penalties.Government Instructions on Silver Bullion Seizure:The judgment referenced government instructions stipulating that silver bullion without foreign markings should only be seized when exceeding 100 Kgs. The instructions aimed to prevent harassment to artisans, silversmiths, and dealers. Since the silver in question lacked foreign origin markings and did not meet the specified weight threshold, the confiscation and penalties were deemed unwarranted. The judgment allowed all three appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential reliefs to the appellants.