The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the confiscation of gold biscuits on the grounds that the customs authority has failed to record the statement of the relevant person.
The bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) has observed that the production of Bill of Entry which in higher probability related to the gold biscuits seized, the non recording of any statement of the relevant persons by the department coupled with finding being based on assumption and presumption makes the confiscation bad in law.
The bench relied on the decision of the tribunal in the case of Dhanishtah Gold Vs. CC, Ahmedabad, in which it was indicated non recording of statement of the relevant person after production of any proof of legitimate acquisition shifted onus on the department.
An Angadia firm was intercepted and 2 pieces of 1Kg each of gold were found in his possession. While one was released after detention and belonged to another party. The second one belonging to the appellant, Jyoti Jewellers and which was moved for job work to M/s. M.H. Karbawala & Co, Mumbai under challan from M/s. Jyoti Jewellers was detained earlier and later seized on 06.05.2014.
The lower authorities upheld confiscation, however, allowed release of the same on redemption find of Rs. 2,00,000 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on appellant i.e. M/s. Jyoti Jewellers and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri. Hiteshbhai Dwarkadas Patel, partner of M/s. Arvind Kantilal & Co., under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as he was carrying the above gold for the Angadia firm M/s. Arvind Kantilal & Co.
Despite appellant producing a Bill of Entry of import having been done under Bill of Entry through M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The seizure was upheld on the basis that the last two digits on the gold bar were not clearly visible.
The appellant contended that statements was done, nor of officials of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank or intermediary was done to establish as to how two last numbers got erased so as to not remain visible.
The tribunal while setting aside the confiscation held that if the preponderance of probability is not in favour of Customs authorities, the department cannot be said to have proved that gold seized was smuggled into India.
Case Details
Case Title: Jyoti Jewellers Versus C.C.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 10090 of 2016-SM
Date: 09.01.2025
Counsel For Appellant: P. P. Jadeja
Counsel For Respondent: Himanshu P Shrimali
