TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons while they were boarding Delhi bound Brahmaputra Mail on 20.06.2016. The DRI maintained a vigil at Kamakhya Railway Station and two persons were intercepted by the DRI officials. Trolley bags carried by them were searched and it was found that cavities were made inside the trolley bags to conceal the gold bars. The officers found 4 yellow metal bars likely to be primary gold of foreign origin. The intercepted persons could not produce any documents in respect of the goods in question. After this, the seized gold was tested by M/s. A.K. Jewellars and it was certified that the gold were of 24 Kt. Purity. After due process, the Adjudicating authority has confiscated the gold bars absolutely and imposed penalty of Rs.3.00 Lakhs on Appellant Shri A. Mohammad Dhariq (Appeal No.76446 of 2017). He has also imposed penalty of Rs.2.00 Lakhs on Shri T. Jaffar Sathik (Appeal No.76445 of 2017). Being aggrieved, the Appellants filed Appeals before the Tribunal. From the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant, we do not see that the Appellants have brought in any specific evidence to the effect that this gold bars were licitly procured by them within India. On the other hand, the Adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were kept concealed in the two trolley bags and that, they took over the trolley bags and transferred their belongings from their respective air bags to the said trolley bags and further that, their contact persons took away their empty air bags. He also stated that it was their modus operandi of carrying gold from Guwahati to Chennai and that, they were carrying the recovered gold secretly as these gold bars were brought from Mayanmar through Moreh without any licit document and also without paying any tax. He further stated that he received these gold bars from one Mangal at Guwahati and that he did not know the address of Mangal and also that Mangal had contacted him over phone from unspecified/different numbers. He also stated that the recovered gold were given the shape of cylinder and the markings were removed and also that the same were put inside the hollow space of the pulling rod of the trolley bags at Moreh and further that these gold were brought to Guwahati for handing over the same to them. He also stated that he paid rupees sixty-seven lakh in cash for these gold to Mangal and also that he went to Imphal via Dimapur in the month of February 2016 and stayed there at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to add to his submission given on 20-6-2016. Thus, I find from the facts and circumstances of the present case that A. Mohammad Dhariq and T Jaffar Sathik had given a vivid description as to how the recovered gold were brought from Myanmar to Guwahati, India through Moreh, a town adjacent to Indo- Myanmar border without any document and also as to how the said goods were kept concealed in the said trolley bags in order to evade detection by the law enforcing agencies while these were being transported from Moreh to Guwahati and further that how the said goods were detected/recovered by the DRI officers at Guwahati on 20-6-2016 apart from their disclosure of the facts that they were also engaged in carrying similar goods on two earlier occasions. A. Mohammad Dhariq and T Jaffar Sathik, both however disputed their aforesaid submission while filing reply to the show cause notice and also in the course of personal hearing. It was their common submission that statements subscribed by them as aforesaid were involuntary and false. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it would be relevant to examine the facts and circumstances of the case under which the said persons had subscribed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s it is evident that they were regularly carrying smuggled gold and also a part of a syndicate which was actively involved in smuggling of gold from Myanmar to India. Available records also indicate that the said two persons had never retracted from their respective statements subscribed on 20-06- 2016 and 29-06-2016 in spite of the fact that they got sufficient time as well as opportunity to retract their aforesaid statements and also, it was never their contention at any point of time that the respective statements, subscribed by them under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 20-06-2016 and 29-06-2016, were under duress or coercion or false other than the submissions made in response to the show cause notice and in the course of personal hearing. I also find from the panchnama [which describes the sequence of events recorded from the time of detection of recovered gold to the recording of statements on 29-06-2016] that the statements of the said persons were recorded correctly and factually and also that the DRI officers had not put any force either mental or physical on A. Mohammad Dhariq and T. Jaffar Sathik on 20-06-2016. It is therefore, my considered view that the submis....