TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... colour Skoda vehicle at Sonway Toll Plaza, Indore. Two persons were seated in the car namely Shri Navanath Chavan s/o Shri Hanamant Chavan and Shri Balasaheb mahadik s/o Shri Bhawsaheb Mahadik. On the search of the said vehicle 3 yellow metal bars wrapped in a newspaper were found concealed in the specially built cavities beneath the rear seat of the Skoda car. None of the occupants could produce any legal documents for purchase of those metal bars, which appeared to be gold. They said that they had received the bars from Shri Suresh Gidde after paying Rs.1,80,60,000/- in cash to him at Pune. 1.2 The Government approved assayer M/s. Johari Radhakrishna Khandelwal examined the yellow metal bars and confirmed those to be gold of 99.5% purity totally weighing 3001.980 grams. He assessed the value of the said gold at Rs.1,81,61,979/-. The approver also reported that the bars were made by melting gold bullion and there is no BIS/hallmark thereupon as is required by Indian Bullion Standards. The bars were suspected to be of foreign origin. Pursuant to the assayer's report, the bars were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that they were smuggled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posing harsh and excessive penalties. 3.1 It is mentioned that the goods have wrongly been held to be the prohibited goods on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. The adjudicating authority did not follow provisions of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 before relying on the statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. On this ground alone, the impugned order upholding the confiscation of seized goods, holding them to be smuggled foreign origin gold bars, is a completely prejudicial and biased order and thus is liable to be set aside. The decisions of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sartaj International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, ICD (Export), New Delhi in Customs Appeal No. 55550/2023 dated 06.01.2026 and M/s. Global Links Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi in Customs Appeal No. 51134/2025 dated 14.01.2026 have been relied upon on behalf of Shri Pranith Jadhav who claimed the seized gold bars belonged to his father Shri Sarjerao Jadhav. In addition following decisions also has been relied upon: (i) Saurabh Kapoor Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD (Import), TKD, New Delhi passed by Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med constant communication between the accused/appellants thereby corroborating the allegations of smuggling of gold by the appellants as a syndicate. All the appellants have committed one or the other such kind of act/omission which has rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Hence penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 has rightly been imposed. Since no documents were produced by the possessors of the gold and the same was assessed by the assayer to lack hallmark but was gold of 99.5% purity that goods have rightly been held to be prohibited goods. There is no infirmity in the order confiscating the said bars and even the vehicle in which those bars were found concealed. 4.2 It is further submitted that though Shri Pranith Jadhav had claimed the ownership of the gold stating that the bars were made after melting gold ornaments procured through Siddhanth Jewellers but the purity of such gold remains only at 91 to 92%, the purity of seized gold was of 99.5%. Hence, these submissions have rightly been rejected as being unsubstantiated and insufficient to discharge the burden cast on the appellants under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.3 The argume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present case, to discharge the said burden, no evidence has been produced by any of the appellants. The only defence taken by the appellant (Shri Pranith Jadhav) is that the gold was made by melting old jewelry. But the said defence has not been proved by the appellants. The documents produced by Shri Pranith Jadhav were found to be fabricated bills/invoices. Hence, the burden which was shifted upon the appellant after invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act stands undischarged. No benefit can be extended in favour of the appellant even on technical irregularities as pointed out by the appellants. We draw our support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Praveen Kumar Jalan Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), New Delhi reported as (2025) 26 Centax 75 (Tri.-Del.) and also from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dmani @ Raju Damani reported as 2024 (389) ELT 444 (Cal.) which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide case law cited as 2025 (394) ELT 46 (SC). In an earlier decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors. Vs. D. Bhoormull reported as 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC), the Hon'ble Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The yellow metal is approved to be gold of 99.5% purity vide report dated 09.09.2023. Thus there is sufficient documentary evidence on record which has not been falsified despite the burden was on the appellants in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act to prove their innocence. 9.1 Resultantly, irrespective of the mandate of Section 138B of the Customs Act, the statements of the appellants as were got recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act having admission of smuggling gold stands corroborated. Hence those sections do not come to the rescue of the appellant in the given circumstances. 10. Coming to the another challenge of not being afforded with the opportunity of cross examining the DRI officers, it is observed that since the statements made by the appellants herein are in the nature of admission of the guilt/importing foreign origin gold. The admissions need not to be proved. Declining opportunity of cross examination cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interest of the persons admitting their guilt nor such right can be called as the mandatory right in light of the admissions already recorded. We draw our support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in....