TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata - 700 001, whereby the adjudication Order No. 23/2019 ADC dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Kolkata has been upheld. 2. The facts of the case are that acting on a specific intelligence gathered to the effect that one person by the name of Shri Uday Shankar Rai (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") who was coming from Guwahati via Indigo Flight No. 6E 208 on 18.01.2016 and would be carrying smuggled gold of foreign origin secreted in his body, the said person, Shri Uday Shankar Rai (appellant), along with one (01) handbag was intercepted near conveyor belt no. 03 at the Domestic Arrival Hall of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Airport....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Customs Act, 196 read with the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, the said gold bars along with the wrapping materials thereof were seized by the Customs Officers. 3. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on 08.07.2016 on the allegation that Shri Uday Shankar Rai (appellant) had tried to import 06 (six) yellow metallic gold bars of 24 Karat, weighing 996.600 grams and totally valued at Rs.26,40,990/(Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Forty Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) from outside India in clandestine manner, without declaring the same to the Customs Authorities and by concealing the same in ingenious way inside the rectum, which is a clear case of violation of the Section 111(d), 111 (i) and 111(l) of Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has decided the issue on the basis of the statements tendered by the appellant on 18.01.2016 and 19.01.2016. She contends that the principles of natural justice have not been followed in this case before deciding the issue since only three opportunities of personal hearing were given by the ld. adjudicating authority. It is her submission that act of carrying of the gold in question in the rectum/body cavity and failure to produce licit documents as to its acquisition/possession/transportation does not automatically mean that the seized gold is of foreign origin; that the observation of the lower authorities that the appellant has smuggled gold of foreign origin is only based on assumptions and presumptions. Hence, the Ld. Counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is a fact on record that the gold in question has been recovered from the body cavity of the appellant. In this regard, we agree with the submission of the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue that if the appellant had brought the gold through legal means, then there was no need for him to conceal the same in his rectum. The ingenious method of concealment of the gold in his rectum/body cavity clearly establishes the intention of the appellant to smuggle the gold into India in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also a fact on record that at the time of recovery of the said gold, the appellant failed to produce any document evidencing licit purchase of the gold. There is no dispute that the gold recover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....travention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and attempted to transport the same in the country by concealing the gold inside his body cavity. Consequently, we hold that the gold in question is liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d), 111(i) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, and accordingly uphold the absolute confiscation of the gold ordered by the lower authorities. 8. As regards the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act, we take note of the fact that Section 112(a) is applicable to cases where there is an attempt to do or omission to do an act, with respect to goods, which would render the same liable to confiscation under Section 111. Similarly, Section 112(b) prescribes....