TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case are as under : That the appellants were apprehended by the Police Personnel of Nabadwip Police Station on 29.04.2015 at around 00.15 hrs. as the appellants in their private vehicle being SCALA DCI RX2 bearing Registration No. WB 92/0707 were looking for hotel at Nabadwip, District: Nadia. The appellants were taken into Nabadwip Police Station and were put inside lock-up and after 2-3 hrs. they were informed that there is recovery of 26 kgs. of gold bars from a laptop bag kept at the said vehicle and accordingly, the appellants were arrested in Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 187/15 dated 29.04.2015 alleging their offences u/s 413/414/379/411/34 of IPC and were produced before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st. Court, Nabadwip on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own money for expense at Mayapur. He submitted that he had no knowledge about any gold in the laptop bag. 2.2 After extension of time limit a Show Cause Notice dated 1.3.2016 was issued to the appellants by the Customs Authority u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing confiscation of seized gold u/s 111(b) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1962; confiscation of private vehicle u/s 115 of the Customs Act, 1962; confiscation of Indian cash currency u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962; & prosecution of appellant, Sri Om Prakash Shah u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, no copy of any relied upon documents to the said SCN was provided alongwith the SCN to the appellants. 2.3 That n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther submits that the in the impugned order, the ld.Commissioner erroneously held that the burden of proof with respect to the seized gold lies upon the appellants in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as in the present case, admittedly, the gold was initially seized by the Police Personnel of Nabadwip Police Station on 29.04.2015 and subsequently, in terms of the order of the Judicial Magistrate , the same was handed over to the Customs, when the seizure case dated 22.05.2015 was booked and as such circumstances, the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not apply in this case as the goods was not received from the appellants by the Customs Officers. It is his submission that it is settled position ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered the submissions. 6. We find that the claims of the appellants are that one laptop bag was received by them from a person at Ranaghat to hand over the same to Samu at Kolkata. Samu has given Rs.1,60,000/- to the appellant to hand over money to the person who will hand over the laptop bag, but at the time of giving the laptop bags, neither the seized goods belongs to them nor the Indian currency recovered. Therefore, the appellants are seeking immunity from the appellants imposed on the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In that circumstances, we are going to decide whether the present facts and circumstances of the case the penalties can be imposed on the appellants or not ? 8. We find that in these cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer seized the goods under some other law, such as. Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused lost possession of the goods which then vested in the police and when that possession was transferred to Customs authorities under Section 180 ibid, there was no fresh seizure under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The provisions of Sea Customs Act and the Customs Act, 1962 are identical with respect to the seizure and the onus of proof in the instant case. From the records it is evident that it is the police who seized the goods on 6-11-2009 and thereafter they were handed over to the Customs authorities by the police on the request of the Customs authorities. In other words, the Customs authorities did not seize the goods from the appellants; therefore, ....