2025 (6) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant in this appeal. In the OIO, the Additional Commissioner absolutely confiscated 2,946.80 g of gold recovered from the appellant and owned by him under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on him under section 112(b) (i)of the Act. 2. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order are that the officers of Customs received specific intelligence acting on which they searched the premises of the appellant and recovered six pieces of gold, weighing 2,946.80 g with foreign markings. When asked on 11.4.2018, the appellant stated that he deals in sale or purchase of gold and silver, but had no documents or invoices evidencing licit possession of the seized gold. He said that he had b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 7. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned consultant for the appellant appeared before us and made the following submissions: (i) The appellant is a trader of billions, and is registered with the GST. (ii) On 11.4.2018, the Customs officers seized from the appellant the disputed gold which was in irregular pieces and had foreign markings as the appellant had no invoices. (iii) The seizure memo records no reason to believe that the gold was smuggled gold. (iv) In due course, invoices were produced but they were not considered by the lower authorities and this submission of the appellant is recorded on page 44 of the OIO. A copy of the invoice is placed at page 47 of the appeal. (v) The gold was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....produced much later which is at page 47 of the appeal does not match with the seized gold. There is no reference to the foreign marked gold that was seized, let alone any duty paying documents related to it. (vi) Therefore, the gold was correctly confiscated and the penalty was correctly imposed on the appellant. (vii) The appeal may be dismissed and the impugned order may be upheld. Findings 9. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. The first issue which we need to examine is whether Section 123 of the Act would apply to this case. This section reads as follows: "Section 123. Burden of proof in certain cases. - (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r bills from traders who had come to his shop. 12. In his statement recorded the next day on 12.4.2018, he again reiterated that he had no documents for the seized gold. In our considered view, this gave the officers reasonable belief that the six foreign marked pieces of gold were smuggled gold. When they are seized, the burden of proof shifted to the appellant from who they were seized to prove that they were not smuggled. 13. In another statement recorded on 9.8.2018 (almost after four months), the appellant again reiterated that he had bought the gold pieces without any invoices or documents and had no documents to show their licit possession. 14. The next question is if the appellant has, by producing the invoice which is placed at ....