Gold bars seized from railway passengers upheld after no documents produced for foreign origin goods

CESTAT Kolkata dismissed an appeal concerning seizure and confiscation of gold bars. DRI officials intercepted two persons at Kamakhya Railway Station while boarding Delhi-bound train on 20.06.2016. Search revealed 4 yellow metal bars of foreign origin concealed in cavities within trolley bags. The intercepted persons failed to produce any documents for the goods. CESTAT upheld the adjudicating authority's order as appellant provided no specific contrary evidence. Appeal dismissed with confiscation order sustained.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure and confiscation of gold bars.
2. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.
3. Evaluation of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Legality of the adjudicating authority's order.

Summary:

1. Seizure and Confiscation of Gold Bars:
The issue pertains to the seizure and confiscation of gold bars weighing 2405 grams valued at Rs. 73,11,200/-. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials intercepted two individuals at Kamakhya Railway Station on 20.06.2016. The gold bars were concealed inside trolley bags. The intercepted individuals could not produce any documents for the gold. The gold was tested and certified as 24 Kt purity by M/s. A.K. Jewellers. The adjudicating authority confiscated the gold bars absolutely u/s 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants:
The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on Appellant A. Mohammad Dhariq and Rs. 2,00,000 on T. Jaffar Sathik u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants filed appeals against these penalties.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority relied on the statements given by the appellants u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, where they admitted to smuggling gold from Myanmar to India. The statements detailed their modus operandi and were corroborated by each other. The appellants later claimed these statements were involuntary and false, but the adjudicating authority found no evidence of coercion or duress. The statements were considered credible and factual.

4. Legality of the Adjudicating Authority's Order:
The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the detailed order passed by the adjudicating authority. The appellants did not provide any specific evidence to counter the findings. The tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the gold bars and trolley bags and the penalties imposed on the appellants.

Order:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision.

---