TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fic intelligence the Customs Officers of Tirupati Commissionerate intercepted on car on 18.12.2020 in which Shri Niazi Pathan Nasarulla Khan, Niazi Pathan Hyder Khan, Niazi Pathan Nymatulla Khan and Shaik Ali Share were travelling. Further, detailed examination of the vehicle resulted, inter alia, in detection of certain gold jewellery like bangles, bracelets, chains and on questioning about its bonafide they claimed to have procured the gold jewellery at Chennai. The said gold jewellery totally weighing 324.050gms was certified to be of 22K purity and collectively valued at 15,16,553/-. The Officers under reasonable belief that the said jewellery was made out of re-melted smuggled gold of foreign origin, placed it under seizure. Further, statements were recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act from all concerned, wherein, inter alia, Shri Niazi Pathan Nymatulla Khan gave details of source of procurement at Chennai and also admitted of not having any valid documents of purchase etc. However, later on 20.04.2021 Shri Niazi Pathan Nymatulla Khan retracted his statements and stated that a part of jewelleries were purchased from Chennai from one M/s Shreem Jewellery, Coimbatore and wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such gold jewelleries were made out of smuggled gold and therefore, were liable for confiscation. In so far as reliance being placed by the Department on the statement of the supplier is concerned, he states that Department had not asked him to disclose the source of gold from which said jewelleries were made and therefore, it is the presumption of the Department that the said jewelleries were made out of smuggled gold. 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR has given the background of the seizure and the context in which such seizures were made. He stated that while gold jewellery was recovered from a secret compartment, which was under the possession of Niazi Pathan Nymatulla Khan, certain other gold jewellery and foreign marked gold pieces were also recovered from the same car in respect of which the other person have owned up and for which a separate panchanama has been drawn and the same forms part of separate Show Cause Notice and adjudication proceedings. Therefore, in the totality of facts of the case, there was sufficient reasonable belief for Department to presume that the said gold jewellery were made out of smuggled gold and therefore, were rightly seized. The subseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive Shri A. Rangadham and perused the records. 8. In this appeal, the main issue to be decided is whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act or otherwise in the facts of the case. It is to be noted that penalty under Section 112 is meant for improper importation of goods by any person. (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111. 9. In so far as, the issue of confiscation of the seized gold jewellery is concerned, that is not the subject matter of this appeal as it has not been challenged by Shri Niazi Pathan Nymatulla Khan by way of appeal. The argument made by Shri Jacky Kumar Jain to be part owner of the said seized jewellery is also not tenable in view of the clear-cut find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Nasarulla Khan and Shri Nymatulla Khan in relation to gold jewellery seized from the possession Shri Nymatulla Khan and in fact he has tried to claim the ownership also but further investigation conducted and especially the investigation at the end of the supplier clearly showed that Shri Jacky Kumar Jain had tried to cover up for the seizure of jewellery made on 18.12.2020 by referring to some other unrelated transactions made with Shreem Jewellery on earlier occasions and this act makes him liable for penalty under Section 112, in as much as he abated with Nasarulla Khan in relation to the seized gold jewellery, and indirectly with Nymatulla Khan by trying to claim the same as his legitimate jewellery. The seized gold jewellery was liable to confiscation and actually confiscated, against which no appeal has been filed by Shri Niazi Pathan Nymatulla Khan. The statement of appellant that he had placed an order to bring jewellery weighing 270.980gms is wholly unnatural and unbelievable, because, no one can ask for a fixed quantity, particularly in decimal grams to be brought. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on various case laws in support of his arguments tha....