Appeal partially allowed: 7 gold bars with foreign markings confiscated under Section 111(d), 3 unmarked bars released

CESTAT New Delhi partially allowed appeal challenging confiscation of 10 gold bars under Customs Act, 1962. Court held that Section 123 burden of proof applied to 7 bars with foreign markings, requiring appellant to prove non-smuggled origin. For 3 unmarked bars, department failed to establish foreign origin despite reasonable belief. Confiscation of 7 foreign-marked bars upheld as smuggled goods under Section 111(d). Confiscation of 3 unmarked bars set aside due to insufficient evidence. Penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA reduced from original amount to Rs. 7 lakhs each, corresponding to upheld confiscation of 7 bars only.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Evidence supporting the order of confiscation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Invocation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962

The primary question here is whether the department rightly invoked Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 123 shifts the burden of proving that goods are not smuggled onto the person from whose possession the goods were seized or who claims ownership. The section applies to gold, watches, and other goods specified by the Central Government.

For Section 123 to be invoked, the intercepting officers must have a reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled. This belief can be based on observation or other material evidence. In this case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had specific information about an individual carrying smuggled gold. Upon search, 10 gold bars were found concealed in a suitcase. Seven bars had foreign markings with defaced serial numbers, and three were plain. The individual admitted the gold was smuggled, and no valid import documents were provided, only self-made stock vouchers.

The court found that the DRI officers had a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled, justifying the invocation of Section 123 for the seven bars with foreign markings. However, for the three plain bars, the court held that the burden was on the department to prove they were also of foreign origin.

Issue 2: Evidence Supporting the Order of Confiscation

Section 111 of the Customs Act provides for the confiscation of improperly imported goods. The court examined whether the evidence supported the confiscation under Section 111(b) and 111(d).

For the seven gold bars with foreign markings, the court found sufficient evidence of smuggling. The individual carrying the gold admitted it was smuggled, and the stock transfer vouchers were deemed manipulative. The court upheld the confiscation of these seven bars, stating that the appellant failed to prove licit possession.

For the three plain bars, the court found no evidence of foreign origin or tampering. Statements from the appellant's job worker and accountant corroborated that these bars were melted from old jewelry. The department failed to prove these three bars were smuggled. Therefore, the court set aside the confiscation of these three bars.

Penalties:

Given the findings, the court reduced the penalties under Section 112 and 114AA to Rs. 7 Lakhs each. The order was modified to release the three gold bars without foreign markings within 15 days, while the rest of the order was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the invocation of Section 123 for seven gold bars with foreign markings but required the department to prove the smuggled nature of the three plain bars. The confiscation of the seven bars was upheld, while the confiscation of the three plain bars was set aside. Penalties were reduced accordingly.

---