TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether 19 gold coins/bars with foreign markings seized from the appellant's shop premises were liable to absolute confiscation under sections 111(a), 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
1.2 Whether the appellant and its partners were liable to penalty under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the said 19 gold coins/bars.
1.3 Whether the appellant's plea that the seized gold coins/bars were old (15-20 years) and used for worshipping could rebut the statutory presumption under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and prevent confiscation and penalty.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 & 3: Confiscation of 19 foreign-marked gold coins/bars and effect of section 123 Customs Act
Legal framework (as discussed):
2.1 The Court noted that the Commissioner had ordered confiscation of 19 gold coins/bars having foreign markings under sections 111(a), 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2.2 The Court specifically referred to section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, recording that the burden of proof lay on the person from whose possession the gold was seized when such goods are notified and bear foreign markings.
Interpretation and reasoning:
2.3 The gold coins/bars with foreign markings were recovered from the appellant's shop premises, which was not a designated customs port.
2.4 The Commissioner had found that the 19 gold coins/bars with foreign markings were "illegally imported/smuggled" and that the actual port of importation was not known, rendering them liable to confiscation under sections 111(a), 111(b) and 111(d).
2.5 Before the Court, the appellant did not dispute that the coins had foreign markings.
2.6 The sole contention advanced was that the coins were more than 15-20 years old and were used for worshipping, and therefore should not have been absolutely confiscated.
2.7 The Court held that, in view of section 123, the burden of proof that the goods were not smuggled lay on the appellant since the coins were seized from its possession.
2.8 The Court observed that nothing had been brought on record by the appellant to substantiate that this statutory burden had been discharged.
2.9 The plea that the coins were old and used for religious worship, without supporting documentation or evidence of licit acquisition or lawful import, was found insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.
Conclusions:
2.10 The 19 gold coins/bars with foreign markings were held liable to absolute confiscation under sections 111(a), 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act.
2.11 The appellant's plea based on age of the coins and their religious use was rejected as inadequate to discharge the burden under section 123 of the Customs Act.
2.12 No infirmity was found in the Commissioner's order directing absolute confiscation of the said 19 gold coins/bars.
Issue 2: Liability to penalty under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act
Legal framework (as discussed):
2.13 Penalties were imposed on the appellant-firm and its two partners under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis that they dealt with smuggled gold coins/bars with foreign markings.
Interpretation and reasoning:
2.14 The Commissioner had found that during the DRI search at the appellant's office premises, 19 gold coins with foreign markings were recovered and later seized.
2.15 It was recorded that the appellant and its partners failed to produce any document in support of licit possession of the said 19 gold coins with foreign markings.
2.16 The Commissioner further found that they defended their possession under the "pretext" of using the coins for religious purposes, and concluded that they had knowingly and intentionally involved themselves in purchasing and dealing with smuggled gold coins/bars.
2.17 Before the Court, except for reiterating that the coins were old and used for worshipping, no other submission was advanced on behalf of the appellants against the imposition of penalty.
2.18 The Court, having already held that the burden under section 123 had not been discharged and that the coins were liable to confiscation as smuggled goods, found no basis to interfere with the penalty imposed under section 112(b)(i).
Conclusions:
2.19 The finding that the appellant and its partners had rendered themselves liable to penalty under section 112(b)(i) by dealing with smuggled gold coins/bars was upheld.
2.20 The penalties imposed on the appellant-firm and its two partners under section 112(b)(i) were sustained.
2.21 The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order insofar as it related to confiscation of the 19 gold coins/bars and the imposition of penalties, and all appeals were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
