2025 (2) TMI 565 - AT - Customs

Appellants prove ownership of seized gold through consistent statements and business records under Section 123 Customs Act

Shri Munagapadi Raghavendra Kumar, Shri C. Chandrasekar, Shri K. Madhava Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada

Shri Munagapadi Raghavendra Kumar, Shri C. Chandrasekar, Shri K. Madhava Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the seized gold jewelry was smuggled and liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the burden of proof regarding the origin of the gold lies with the appellants or the Customs Department under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the statements obtained from the appellants were admissible and valid, given the claims of coercion and subsequent retraction.Whether the appellants provided sufficient evidence to prove the legitimate purchase and ownership of the seized gold.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Legitimacy of Seizure and Confiscation of Gold JewelryThe relevant legal framework involves the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 111 and 123. Section 111 deals with the confiscation of improperly imported goods, while Section 123 places the burden of proof on the person from whom goods are seized to prove that they are not smuggled.The Court examined the evidence provided by the appellants, including invoices and bank transaction details, to demonstrate that the gold was purchased legitimately from M/s Jain Jewellers and M/s Shree Jewellers in Chennai. The appellants argued that the gold did not bear foreign markings and was domestically acquired, thus not subject to seizure under the suspicion of smuggling.The Court found that the appellants satisfactorily proved the ownership and legitimate purchase of the seized gold jewelry. There were no contradictions in their statements, and the transactions were consistent with normal business practices.2. Burden of Proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962Section 123 of the Customs Act requires that when goods are seized under the belief that they are smuggled, the burden of proof lies on the person from whom the goods were seized. The Court noted that the appellants provided invoices and bank transaction details as evidence of legitimate purchase, shifting the burden back to the Customs Department to prove smuggling.The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs Kasambhai Umerbhai Kureshi, which held that without reasonable belief of smuggling, Section 123 does not apply. The Court found that the Customs Department failed to establish a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled.3. Admissibility of Statements and Claims of CoercionThe appellants claimed that their initial statements were obtained under coercion and subsequently retracted them. The Court considered the retraction and the subsequent statements made by the appellants and other witnesses, such as the proprietor of M/s Jain Jewellers, which corroborated the appellants' claims of legitimate purchase.The Court emphasized that the statements were consistent and supported by documentary evidence, thus dismissing the claims of coercion as not materially affecting the legitimacy of the appellants' claims.4. Evaluation of Competing ArgumentsThe Customs Department argued that the appellants failed to prove that the gold was not smuggled, relying on the initial statements and the provisions of Section 123. However, the Court found that the appellants provided sufficient evidence to refute the presumption of smuggling, as required by the legal framework.The Court also considered the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Vs Om Prakash Khatri, which dealt with the burden of proof and reasonable belief. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the appellants provided a satisfactory explanation and evidence for the legitimacy of the gold, rendering the cited case inapplicable.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the Customs Department failed to establish a reasonable belief that the seized gold was smuggled. The appellants successfully proved the legitimacy of their ownership and purchase of the gold jewelry.Core Principles Established:The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act lies initially on the person from whom goods are seized, but can be shifted back to the Customs Department upon satisfactory evidence of legitimate purchase.Statements obtained under coercion and subsequently retracted must be carefully evaluated with supporting evidence to determine their admissibility and impact.Reasonable belief of smuggling must be established by the Customs Department to justify seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act.Final Determinations:The appeals were allowed, and the confiscation of the gold jewelry was set aside.The appellants were entitled to consequential reliefs as per law.