TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Mumbai to Delhi to transport and supply gold jewellery belonging to Bharat Shantilal Shah to different jewelers in Delhi. 3. On 19.01.2023, the appellant, who was travelling from Mumbai to New Delhi by train, was intercepted by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] Officials at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station. The DRI Officers issued a notice to him under section 102 of the Customs Act for search of his baggage. Subsequently he and Sanjay Ram, who had come to pick him, were taken to the DRI Office. At the DRI office, a search was effected resulting in recovery of 12 boxes containing gold jewellery from one dark grey colour trolley. A box was also found to contain a blue paper envelope with the marking 'Anand Shah', containing Original Invoice No. SG-460 dated 17.01.2023 issued by M/s. Anand Shah Jewels LLP, Mumbai to M/s. Vikas Chain Jewellery India Ltd, New Delhi. 5 boxes of gold jewellary and another Invoice No. SG-160 dated 18.01.2023 were also recovered from one green trolley and black backpack. This invoice was issued by M/s. Mahalaxmi Chains & Jewellery, Mumbai to M/s. Khandelwal Chain Co., New Delhi. The gold jewellery seized from the appellant collectively weighe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 20756.3 Grams recovered from the possession of Sh. Subhash Tukaram Karan was packed and concealed in the baggage carried by him. I find that Sh. Subhash Tukaram Karan packed and concealed the said Gold jewellery in baggage carried by him on 19.01.2023 in the manner as described in Para 5.5 to 6.1 supra. As per provisions of the Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, Sh. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Sh. Subhash Tukaram Karan failed to provide licit duty paying documents for procurement of the said gold from which the seized jewellery was made. As from the above discussion, Gold Jewellery collectively weighing 20756.3 grams having tariff value as Rs. 8,31,54,318/- carried by him was already confiscated under Section 111(a)/111(b) and 111(d) of The Customs Act, 1962 and Section 119 of The Customs Act, 1962. xxxxxxxxxxx." (emphasis supplied) 7. The Commissioner, thereafter, discussed penalty to be imposed on the appellant under sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act and observed: "158. I find that Sh. Subhash Tukaram Karan collected gold jewellery manufactured from smuggled gold bars of foreign origin from Sh. Bharat Shantilal Shah's Shop M/s Mahalaxm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eizure from Subhash Tukaram Karan. These three invoices were rejected by the Commissioner only on assumptions and presumptions. Each the invoices were on record and the department could have checked and verified the authenticity, but that was not done. xxxxxxxxxx 60. It also needs to be noted that the evidence to justify an inference of smuggling should be one which is relevant for providing the unauthorized importation of goods and not the unauthorized possession of the goods. This view was taken by this Tribunal in V. Muniyandi vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [(2004) 167 E.L.T. 215 (Tri.- Chennai)] and Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive), Mumbai vs. Shailesh N. C. Shah [2007 (218) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.- Mumbai)]. 61. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan Bhatia vs. Union of India and Others [AIR 1965 SC 1072] held that a mere finding of fact that a person is in possession of smuggled goods does neither imply that the Collector of customs has considered the question of person being concerned in the commission of the offence of illegal importation of the goods nor in any way justifies the conclusion that the person must have been so concerned. Other circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14AA of the Customs Act is set aside and the appeal is allowed." 10. It needs to be noted that Anand Dasmal Shah also claimed to be the owner of 4440.84 gms of the total gold jewellery/gold ornaments weighing 20,756.3 gms recovered from the appellant on 19.01.2023. Anand Dasmal Shah filed Customs Appeal No. 52316 of 2024 to assail the confiscation of this gold under section 119 of the Customs Act and by an order of date, the confiscation was set aside and the appeal has been allowed. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: "15. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal relates to 4440.84 gms of gold jewellery/gold ornaments out of gold jewellery/gold ornaments weighing 20,756.3 gms recovered from the bag of Subhash Tukaram Karan. The appellant claims to be the owner of this 4440.84 gms of gold jewellery/gold ornaments. The appellant has provided details of the said gold jewellery/gold ornaments. According to the appellant, Dinesh Verma of M/s. Vikash Chain Jewellery India Limited had selected certain jewellery made by the appellant displayed in an exhibition and it is this jewellery that was being supplied to M/s. Vikash Chain Jewellery India....