Clandestine diversion of duty-free SEZ gold confirmed; Section 121 recovery on buyer overturned, penalties mostly reduced

CESTAT Bengaluru upheld findings of clandestine diversion of duty-free gold from the SEZ unit to DTA, relying on unaccounted 20 kg gold and corroborative statements, and rejected challenges on jurisdiction and validity of SCN. Confiscation of gold seized from the job worker's premises and imposition of redemption fine were sustained, though penalty on the job worker was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- considering absence of knowledge of illegal diversion. Recovery of sale proceeds from the purchasing jeweller under Section 121 was set aside, holding the goods were legally imported and buyer not at fault; consequently, redemption fine and penalty on the buyer were quashed. Customs duty with interest was held recoverable from the SEZ unit on diverted gold, and penalties on various noticees were substantially reduced. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the shortage of 48,785.036 grams of duty-free imported gold from a Special Economic Zone unit stood proved as clandestine diversion to the Domestic Tariff Area, and whether duty with interest was demandable on the unrecovered quantity of 11,186.325 grams.

1.2 Whether the claim for allowance of wastage and export performance under SEZ/FTP norms could be relied upon to negate or reduce the liability arising from such diversion.

1.3 Whether confiscation and redemption of gold ornaments/articles seized from various Domestic Tariff Area entities were legally sustainable, including determination of ownership for purposes of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of related penalties.

1.4 Whether confiscation of 4 kg of gold lying uncleared in the Air Cargo Complex could be sustained.

1.5 Whether the sale proceeds relatable to 10 kg of gold supplied to a Domestic Tariff Area buyer were liable to confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether redemption fine and penalty on such buyer could be sustained.

1.6 Whether penalties imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on the SEZ unit's Managing Director, associated jewellers, and individual co-noticees (consultants/employees) were justified and to what extent they required modification.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Clandestine diversion of imported gold and duty on unrecovered quantity

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 It was undisputed that the SEZ unit imported 3,85,512.500 grams of duty-free primary gold and exported only 3,36,727.464 grams as gold ornaments, leaving a difference of 48,785.036 grams not found in stock at the unit during the search on 11.08.2014.

2.2 Permission granted by the Development Commissioner on 14.02.2013 allowed temporary removal of 50 kg of gold only to a specified job worker and was valid for one year, i.e., up to 13.02.2014. On the date of visit (11.08.2014), this permission had expired and the seized articles were found at premises other than the permitted job worker's premises. No subsequent or alternative permission was produced.

2.3 The Development Commissioner's later final order recorded: (a) the Managing Director's admission that there was absolutely no stock of gold in the SEZ unit and that 10.500 kg imported on 08.08.2014 had been removed to Thrissur for job work; (b) a clear finding that permission for removal had expired and the entire removal was illegal; (c) a quantified shortage of 48,785.036 grams as gold not found in the SEZ premises or legally accounted for.

2.4 The Tribunal relied on these findings and the admitted non-availability of gold in the SEZ unit, together with recovery of substantial quantities of gold ornaments from unrelated DTA premises, to hold that diversion of the 48,785.036 grams of duty-free gold into DTA stood proved beyond doubt.

2.5 Out of the 48,785.036 grams, 27,598.710 grams were seized as ornaments from various DTA premises and value equivalent to 10,000 grams was traced to a DTA buyer; the residual 11,186.325 grams remained unrecovered and unaccounted for.

2.6 Applying the settled principle that exemption notifications and benefits must be construed strictly and that any breach of conditions dis-entitles the beneficiary, the Tribunal held that once diversion and non-fulfilment of conditions were established, duty at the applicable rate became chargeable on the unrecovered quantity.

Conclusions

2.7 Clandestine diversion of 48,785.036 grams of duty-free imported gold from the SEZ unit to DTA was held proved.

2.8 Demand of customs duty amounting to Rs. 30,86,721/- with interest on 11,186.325 grams of unrecovered imported gold was upheld.

Issue 2 - Claim for wastage and export performance to negate liability

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.9 The appellant invoked wastage norms and value-addition requirements under the Handbook of Procedures and Foreign Trade Policy, and relied on alleged exports of 3,78,501.493 grams and inward remittances of foreign exchange to justify wastage of 13,237.0545 grams and to contend that only a reduced balance of gold remained.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 The Development Commissioner, upon detailed verification of Shipping Bills, Bills of Entry and Annual Performance Reports, found major variance between reported and actual export/import data and held that no document had been produced to substantiate the claimed export of 3,78,501.493 grams.

2.11 It was further recorded that: (a) permissible wastage norms apply only where authorised operations / legally permitted job work are undertaken; (b) the unit had, instead, indulged in illegal removal of gold outside CSEZ beyond the limited and expired permission; (c) the claimed inward remittance of Rs. 4,51,94,571.58 was grossly inadequate vis-à-vis the alleged export turnover, showing a serious shortfall in foreign exchange realisation.

2.12 The Tribunal noted that these factual findings were not effectively rebutted. It held that wastage benefits available under SEZ/FTP schemes cannot be used to regularise outright illegal diversion of duty-free imports, and that a person who has violated the conditions of exemption cannot claim the advantage of wastage norms meant for compliant operations.

Conclusions

2.13 The plea for allowance of 13,237.0545 grams as wastage and the related export/remittance based defence was rejected.

2.14 Duty liability on the unrecovered 11,186.325 grams was held to be unaffected by wastage norms or claimed export performance.

Issue 3 - Confiscation and redemption of gold ornaments/articles from DTA entities, ownership and penalties

Interpretation and reasoning

3.1 The impugned order had confiscated: (a) 11,095.90 grams of ornaments from one DTA jeweller and additional quantities from its job workers; (b) 6,499.030 grams from another DTA unit; and (c) 4,346.890 grams from a third DTA unit, all found to be manufactured out of duty-free gold diverted from the SEZ unit.

3.2 The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's finding that the seized gold belonged, for purposes of Section 125, to the respective DTA entities from whose premises it was seized, since evidence showed that those entities had either paid for or supplied ornaments in exchange for gold transferred to them from the SEZ unit's DTA operations.

3.3 It noted that the SEZ unit had not, during investigation or adjudication, asserted ownership over the gold seized from most DTA entities; such ownership was claimed only belatedly in relation to the quantity seized from one specific DTA unit, which was then released to the SEZ unit on the basis of that claim and the other entity's relinquishment.

3.4 Statements of the SEZ unit's Managing Director and various DTA actors, contemporaneous registers, vouchers and the timing and nature of back-dated entries were relied upon to hold that the seized ornaments represented diverted duty-free imports and were therefore liable to confiscation. Attempts to explain away back-dated entries as mere mistakes were not accepted.

3.5 The argument that Section 125 required redemption to be offered only to the SEZ unit as "owner" was rejected in substance by upholding the Commissioner's conclusion that, on the facts, the possessors from whom the gold was seized were the relevant owners/claimants for redemption purposes, and the SEZ unit had not asserted ownership in time (except for the quantity later released to it).

Conclusions

3.6 Confiscation of 11,095.90 grams of gold ornaments seized from the DTA jeweller's unit, along with redemption fine under Section 125, was upheld.

3.7 Confiscation of 4,346.890 grams of gold articles seized from another DTA unit, together with redemption fine, was upheld; penalty on that unit was sustained but reduced to Rs. 25,000/-.

3.8 Confiscation and redemption of other quantities seized from DTA job workers and associated units were upheld; only the quantum of penalties on certain parties was reduced (see Issue 6).

Issue 4 - Confiscation of 4 kg gold lying uncleared at Air Cargo Complex

Interpretation and reasoning

4.1 The High Court had already held that 4 kg of gold imported with proper authorisation, lying in an uncleared area at the Air Cargo Complex, could not be confiscated merely on the apprehension of possible future misuse and had affirmed the Tribunal's earlier view to that limited extent.

Conclusions

4.2 In view of the High Court's final finding, the issue relating to confiscation of 4 kg of gold stood concluded in favour of the appellant, and the related appeal before the Tribunal was disposed of as infructuous.

Issue 5 - Confiscation of sale proceeds of 10 kg gold under Section 121 and liability of the DTA buyer

Legal framework (as discussed)

5.1 Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that sale proceeds of "smuggled goods" are liable to confiscation where the goods are sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that they are smuggled goods.

Interpretation and reasoning

5.2 The show-cause notice proposed confiscation of 10 kg of gold under Sections 111(k), 111(o) and 121, and, as the gold itself was unavailable, the adjudicating authority confiscated sale proceeds of Rs. 2.85 crores from the DTA buyer.

5.3 The Tribunal examined the tax invoice issued by the SEZ unit's DTA concern to the buyer and noted that it complied with local VAT requirements, clearly indicating sale of 10,000 grams of gold bullion with VAT charged.

5.4 The Tribunal held that, although the gold represented diversion from the SEZ unit's duty-free imports (for which the SEZ unit remained liable to duty and interest), the goods themselves had been legally imported and there was no material to show that the DTA buyer knew or had reason to believe that the goods were "smuggled" within the meaning of Section 121.

5.5 Accordingly, the essential ingredients of Section 121 were found not satisfied; the mere fact that the SEZ unit had breached exemption conditions did not automatically render the goods "smuggled" vis-à-vis a buyer dealing under a regular tax invoice.

Conclusions

5.6 Confiscation of sale proceeds of Rs. 2.85 crores under Section 121 was set aside.

5.7 Consequential redemption fine and penalty imposed on the DTA buyer were also set aside.

Issue 6 - Penalties on SEZ unit's Managing Director, jewellers, consultants and employees

Interpretation and reasoning

6.1 The Managing Director of the SEZ unit had, in multiple statements under Section 108, admitted to removal of duty-free gold to various DTA entities without valid documents and without payment of duty, and explained how the transactions were structured and settled. These admissions were corroborated by statements of associated jewellers, job workers, consultants and employees, as well as by seizure of gold and documentary records.

6.2 In light of these findings and the confirmed duty demand on unrecovered gold, penalty under Section 114A on the Managing Director for deliberate mis-utilisation of exemption and evasion was upheld. However, in view of the substantive penal liability under Section 114A, separate penalty under Section 112(a) on him was set aside.

6.3 For the principal DTA jeweller who received 20 kg of gold from the SEZ unit (including 10 kg specifically admitted to have been received from the SEZ unit), maintained manipulated registers, and benefitted from the diverted duty-free gold, the Tribunal upheld confiscation and redemption of seized ornaments, as well as penalty under Section 112, but reduced the quantum to Rs. 5,00,000/- in view of overall circumstances.

6.4 For other DTA entities which received diverted gold for manufacturing (including the entity from whose premises 4,346.890 grams were seized and later redeemed by the SEZ unit), the Tribunal found that they had handled illegally diverted goods but one such entity had acted under a bona fide belief as job worker; its penalty under Section 112(b) was therefore substantially reduced to Rs. 25,000/- while maintaining confiscation and redemption of the seized gold.

6.5 As regards consultants and employees: (a) the principal consultant who organised and physically handled transfer of 10 kg of gold to the DTA jeweller was found to have knowingly facilitated the illegal diversion; his penalty was maintained in principle but reduced to Rs. 25,000/-; (b) his assistant, who merely carried a packet on instructions and retracted his statement asserting lack of knowledge, was given benefit of doubt and penalty on him was set aside; (c) penalties on other employees of the DTA jeweller (manager, accountant, staff) were generally upheld but scaled down in quantum (Rs. 25,000/- each for key participants, Rs. 10,000/- for the accountant) reflecting their relative roles and absence of primary pecuniary benefit.

Conclusions

6.6 Penalty under Section 114A on the Managing Director of the SEZ unit was upheld; penalty on him under Section 112(a) was set aside.

6.7 Penalty on the principal DTA jeweller was upheld but reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/-.

6.8 Penalties on certain co-noticees (jeweller's employee, consultant, DTA unit director) were upheld in principle but reduced to Rs. 25,000/- each; penalty on the accountant was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-.

6.9 Penalty on one assistant consultant was set aside in entirety.

---