2025 (1) TMI 638 - AT - Customs

DRI officers have proper jurisdiction under Section 28 to issue show cause notice in gold smuggling cases

Shri Vemuru Sandeep Son Versus Commissioner of Customs, Guntur And Shri NV Subrahmanyam Versus Commissioner of Customs, Guntur

CESTAT Hyderabad upheld confiscation and penalties in a gold smuggling case. The court held that DRI officers had proper jurisdiction to issue show cause ... Jurisdiction - power of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to issue a SCN u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling of Gold - burden to prove - denial of cross-examination of opportunities to the appellants - violation of principles of natural justoce - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The burden under the Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 which is only of a reasonable belief is effectively discharged by the Department who initiated the action on the basis of the seizure and the recorded statements of the concerned person. Then the onus to prove that the gold was not smuggled, so as to reasonable belief entertained by the Department shifted and is squarely rested on his shoulder. But, in this case, appellants are failed to prove that seized gold is not smuggled. Since, their submissions are not co-related, contradictory and documents which were produced to prove also un-related to seized gold. The appellants in these appeals failed to prove that the seized gold is not smuggled. Impugned order based on facts and law and proper appreciation of evidence. No any interference required in the impugned order. Conclusion - i) The appellants failed to prove the gold was not smuggled and found no procedural violations warranting interference with the original orders. ii) Confiscation and penalties upheld. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment revolves around several core legal questions:Whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers have the jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the gold seized from the appellants was smuggled and liable for confiscation under Sections 111(a), 111(b), 111(d), and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the appellants discharged the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, to establish that the seized gold was not smuggled.Whether the penalty imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b)(i), and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, was justified.Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by denying cross-examination opportunities to the appellants.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISJurisdiction of DRI OfficersLegal Framework and Precedents: The jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs M/s Canon India Pvt Ltd.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of DRI officers based on the Supreme Court's ruling, dismissing the appellants' preliminary objection.Conclusion: The DRI officers were within their rights to issue the show cause notice.Confiscation of Seized GoldLegal Framework and Precedents: Sections 111(a), 111(b), 111(d), and 111(l) of the Customs Act provide grounds for confiscation of goods believed to be smuggled.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to provide satisfactory evidence to counter the presumption of smuggling. The reasonable belief of smuggling was supported by the lack of documentation and contradictory statements.Key Evidence and Findings: The seized gold lacked proper documentation, and the invoices presented were deemed irrelevant.Conclusion: The confiscation of gold was justified under the cited sections of the Customs Act.Burden of Proof under Section 123Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts the burden of proof to the person from whom the goods were seized to prove they are not smuggled.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellants did not discharge their burden of proof, as they failed to provide credible evidence linking the gold to legitimate sources.Conclusion: The appellants did not meet the burden of proof required under Section 123.Imposition of PenaltyLegal Framework and Precedents: Sections 112(a), 112(b)(i), and 117 of the Customs Act provide for penalties in cases of smuggling and related contraventions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the penalties, noting that the appellants' failure to prove the legitimacy of the gold justified the imposition of penalties.Conclusion: The penalties were lawfully imposed.Principles of Natural JusticeLegal Framework and Precedents: The right to cross-examine is a component of natural justice, but its denial is not necessarily a violation if the appellant has confessed or if the evidence is overwhelming.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, as the appellants' acceptance of certain investigation outcomes undermined their claims.Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination did not violate natural justice principles.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies on the person from whom goods are seized to demonstrate they are not smuggled, as per Section 123 of the Customs Act.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the confiscation and penalties. It concluded that the appellants failed to prove the gold was not smuggled and found no procedural violations warranting interference with the original orders.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The burden under the Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 which is only of a reasonable belief is effectively discharged by the Department who initiated the action on the basis of the seizure and the recorded statements of the concerned person.'