TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for imposing penalties on the appellants and absolute confiscation of the gold recovered during the course of search. 2. The facts of the case are that the officers of DRI intercepted Shri Prasanta Saha, appellant along with Smt.Kamalesh, Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Smt. Pinki and Smt.Renu Thapar, co-appellants at about 2.45 p.m. at Guwahati railway station and recovered 5837 gms. of gold under presumption that the same was primarily gold of foreign origin and seized the same under Customs Act, 1962. Statements of the appellants were recorded. DRI recorded the statements of all the appellants who produced the voucher with regard to custody of the said gold with them. But a case was made out against the appellants that the said gold was of fore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ork basis by M/s. Tansukhrai Ratanlal Jewellers, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. The appellant also produced delivery note issued by one M/s. Jindal Bullian Pvt.Ltd. and M/s. Bhunia Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., Delhi for possession of the gold, but the said parties did not claim ownership of the gold later on due to DRI investigation. As the sample of the gold was drawn and same was tested and as per the result the purity of the gold was 995.0 only, which is not of gold of foreign origin. It is the contention of the appellants that gold was not seized at port or airport. It is only a town seizure and having no mark of foreign origin and purity of the gold is also not in conformity as the gold of foreign origin therefore it cannot be believed that the gold in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the course of investigation it is admitted by the appellant that they are bringing gold from Myanmar and the story concocted by the Ld.Counsel during the course of hearing is not having two facts and circumstances as per investigation. Moreover, the appellants could not produce any supportive evidence in support of their claim. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld. 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. 6. On careful considerations and perusal of records placed before us the only issue before us is that whether 3327.40 gms of gold can be absolutely confiscated without having any iota of evidence that the gold being smuggled in nature. In fact, it is a case of town seizure and the appellants were carrying job....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld having the marking 'rand refinery' weighing 998.600 gram valued at Rs. 31,95,520/-, as per the valuation report. 30. So far, the other four pieces of gold bars having no foreign marking weighing 998.700 grams (3 bars) and 1 bar weighing 998.600 grams and the cut piece weighing 200.900 gms., I hold that these are not liable to confiscation, as admittedly it is the case of town seizure. I further hold that the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act are not attracted. Accordingly, I set aside the order of confiscation with respect to these four gold bars and the cut piece and further order that the same is to be released to the person from whom they were recovered - Mr. Sanjay Soni. The penalty imposed under Section 112(b) is....