TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are such that the Appellant is a resident of Garhwa, Jharkhand and on 31.07.2019, when the Appellant was returning to Aligarh from Kolkata by Train No.12381, he was apprehended by GRP personnel at Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Junction (Mughalsarai) Railway Station, and four gold bars were recovered from the Appellant. The recovered gold bars and the Appellant were then handed over by GRP to the Customs (Preventive), who seized the gold bars weighing 1599.200 grams and valuing Rs.54,37,280/- vide seizure order dated 31.07.2019. The statement of the Appellant was then recorded on 01.08.2019 to the effect that he works with his brother Sri Ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her Sri Arun Kumar. 3. At this stage, the Revenue again recorded statement of the Appellant on 28.08.2019 in District Jail, Varanasi after taking permission of the Court of Special CJM (Economic Offences), Varanasi. The statement was to the effect that the Appellant has no concern with the firm of his brother M/s G.S India, neither his brother Sri Arun Kumar nor Sri Santosh Kumar are involved with the smuggling, the Appellant took the name of Sri Arun Kumar and Sri Santosh Kumar just to save himself, the Appellant does not know about the owner of M/s Kashi Jewellers, after taking possession of gold bars from Sri Bablu at Kolkata, the Appellant had to deliver the same to one Sri Pramod and that he does not know the phone numbers of Sri Babl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eligibility criteria for import of gold to India and therefore the recovered gold bars are prohibited goods, liable to be absolutely confiscated. The copies of invoices dated 24.11.2016 and 27.01.2017 produced by the Appellant were also held to be not related to the seized gold, as the same were issued well before 18 months of the seizure. The plea of the Appellant that statements were obtained under duress and coercion was also rejected on the ground of absence of any retraction. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- on the Appellant under Section 112(b) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the adjudication order dated 09.06.2021, the Appellant preferred appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which was numbered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant. Although the Appellant has contended that both the statements were recorded under duress and coercion, then also by taking both the statements on face value, the statement dated 01.08.2019 records that he along with his two brothers was involved in smuggling of gold bars, he received the subject gold bars from one Sri Bablu at Kolkata, at the time when the subject gold bars came into his possession there were no foreign markings, he was informed by Sri Bablu that the subject gold bars were smuggled into India from Bangladesh and foreign markings were erased at Kolkata and also that the subject gold bars were to be delivered to M/s Kashi Jewellers, Kanpur. While the Revenue investigated the matter further but did not find any involv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... never precluded the Revenue from taking custody of Sri Bablu and procure his testimony, in the manner known to law. Here it is also important to note that having found nothing incriminating against the brother of the Appellant, Sri Santosh Kumar and M/s Kashi Jewellers, the Revenue was also required to investigate the matter further in respect of Sri Pramod, who allegedly was the recipient of the subject gold bars. However, the Revenue also failed to procure the testimony of Sri Pramod on record and therefore the Revenue clearly failed to fill up the loose ends in the story of smuggling and delivery of goods at Delhi. 12. On the contrary, the Revenue has also not disputed the genuineness of the two invoices produced by the Appellant and t....