TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017 claimed the ownership of the gold and submitted documents like photocopy of invoices No.5135 dated 21.07.2017 issued by M/s Saheli Gems and Jewelers Private Limited, Bhillai at a value of Rs. 58,50,000/-; Karigar issued slip dated 22.07.2017 issued to Shubh, Kolkata and a copy of letter dated 22.07.2017 on the letterhead of Shri Adinath Jewelers and signed by Noticee No.2. On completion of the investigation, SCN dated 22.01.2018 along with a Corrigendum dated 24.05.2018 was issued to (i) Shri Sonu Jal, Raipur (ii) Shri RajendraSethiya, Raipur (iii) Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Bhilai (iv) Shri Rajendra Jain, Bhilai proposing confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Patna, vide Order dated 20.11.2018 has absolutely confiscated the seized gold and imposed penalties on various Noticees. On an appeal filed by the Appellants, learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 11.04.2019 has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeals of all the four Noticees. The Department has filed four appeals against the Order-in- Appeal on the following grounds of appeal along with miscellaneous applications for the stay of the operation of the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any such documents. (v) The statement of Shri Sonu Jal can be relied upon as Shri Rajendra Sethiya failed to establish that the seized gold bars were legally procured by him; Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Surjeet Singh Chabra Vs UOI, 1997 (84) ELT 646 (SC) that a statement made before Customs officers though retracted within six days is an admissible evidence. (vi) There are contradictions in the statements of Shri Rajendra Sethiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Jain; Shri Manoj Kumar Jain could not produce daily stock details from 01.04.2017 to 11.09.2017; though he submitted the same on 12.09.2017; non-production of stock details as and when required indicates that the same has been manipulated; as per the Tower location records, Shri Manoj Kumar Jain was in Bhillai only on the material day; Toll records at Kharoon did not indicate that any of the cars belonging to Shri RajendraSethiya have passed the road or transferred travelled on that road on 21.07.2017; the payments details for the gold alleged to have been produced on 21.07.2017 have been manipulated after the seizure of gold; This was the first business transaction between them that too on credit for which no credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n transporting the said gold bars from Bhilai to Raipur for sale of the said gold bars to Shri Rajendra Sethiya, the appellant number 2 crossed the "Kharun Toll Plaza" and thereby the said sale is an afterthought to cover smuggling of gold and also on a text message sent from the mobile number 9827191518 of Shri Rajendra Sethiya to the mobile number 8100881286 of Shri Sonu of Kolkata alleged to be the supplier of the said smuggled gold bars. The Department has also relied upon the statement of Shri Soham Verma, the proprietor of M/s Subh wherein he has stated that he did not know Shri Rajendra Sethiya and Shri MukeshGanatra who is known to Shri Sethiya. The adjudicating authority discarded all the points raised by the appellants and relied upon the evidences cobbled together by the Department to hold that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon them under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 that the said gold bars were not smuggled into India without payment of duty and were not liable to confiscation. 10. I find that on the eventful day of 24.07.2017 Shri Sonu Jal was intercepted by the officers of DRI, Patna with two gold bars in Howrah Mumbai Mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Spl. Judge, Economic Offence Court, Patna on 28.07.2017 and the issue of retraction came during bail petition; therefore, the Department cannot take the plea of ignorance of such retraction and ignore the said retraction unless the same is rebutted by corroborative evidence to the contrary. 12. Now the question arises whether the confessional statement of Shri Sonu Jal recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be made the main basis and relied upon by the adjudicating authority to order confiscation of the subject goods in the backdrop of retracted statement of Shri Sonu Jal and the evidences put forth by the appellants for licit possession of the said gold bars to dislodge the entire edifice of the case propped up by the Department. It is settled position of law that statement recorded before a Customs Officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is substantive evidence but the Court expects some corroboration before acting upon it and even the slight corroboration would suffice. Its truth is to be judged in the context of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. It has to be seen whether it fits into the proved facts and evidence and do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... over the said gold bars and produced a purchase bill number 5135 dated 21.07.2017 of M/s Saheli Gems &Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, a gold dealer of Bhilai. The Department followed the Bhilai trail by initiating thorough investigation at the said gold dealer and the said gold dealer confirmed the sale of 2.0 kg of gold to Shri Rajendra Jain. The Department did not accept the statements of Shri Rajendra Sethiya and Shri Rajendra Jain, one of the Directors of M/s. Saheli Gems & Jewelers Pvt. Ltd, and alleged that the entire exercise of the said purchase and sale of gold was an afterthought. It was held that no cars belonging to the directors of the said gold dealer croassed Kharun Toll Plaza and payments for purchase were made after booking of the case of the Department. Further, invoice book serial number was not maintained suggestive of the fact that said transaction was a cover up exercise initiated post seizure of the subject goods. Now coming to the serious doubts raised by the Department about the authenticity and genuineness of the purchase bill produced by Shri Rajendra Sethiya, I find that Saheli Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, has produced relevant bills and stock register maintained by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....keep in touch with Shri Sonu Jal and Shri Sethiya to confirm their disassociation with the subject goods. Moreover, given the facts that the subject consignment was 21st one, the Department should have carried forward the investigations further to get the details about the correct address, mobile numbers, etc of Shri Sonu for tracing him to know the entire chain of the alleged smugglings of gold. Having not done so, the whole effort of the Department was to heavily rely on the said retracted statement and some loose and unfounded evidence to disprove the authenticity and genuineness of purchase bill no. 5135 dated 21.07.2018 and other documents produced by the appellant. 17. The adjudicating authority in his findings has observed that the import of gold of foreign origin by eligible passengers and various entities is subject to certain conditions and restrictions envisaged in the notifications issued by the Customs and moreover, the said invoices produced by the appellant do not contain the description of the foreign origin gold seized by the officer of DRI and the said invoice was not backed by any import document and no payment was made to this effect by the appellant Shri Seth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so relied upon Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs UOI, 2016 (342) ELT 232 (CAL) on the issue of burden of proof. On going through the various case laws cited by the learned Adjudicating Authority and the analysis of facts and circumstances of the cases cited by him, we find that learned Adjudicating Authority has correctly analysed the facts of the case and evaluated the applicable legal provisions and case laws. We find in the instant case, the Department could not adduce any evidence to prove that the gold was of smuggled in nature. Once, Shri Rajendra Sethiya has staked his claim on the impugned gold and has submitted documents to establish the same; it was incumbent upon the Department to disprove the same with the documentary evidence or cogent investigation. 9. We find that the Department attempts to disprove the claim of Shri Rajendra Sethiya on the basis of arguments that his cars did not pass to certain toll plaza, his tower location did not indicate that he travelled to Bhilai on the particular date and his transaction with Saheli Gems and Jewelers Private Limited, Bhilai was the first one and there too it was on credit. We find that these claims would not stand to scrutiny of law a....