No Documents to Show that Duty was Paid for Foreign Marked Gold: CESTAT Confirms Confiscation of Gold Bars and a Piece of Gold u/s 111(d) of Customs Act [Read Order]

Documents - Duty - Foreign Marked Gold - CESTAT - Gold Bars - Piece of Gold - Customs Act - Taxscan

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), comprising PV Subba Rao, Technical Member and Binu Tamta, Judicial Member confirmed the confiscation of gold bars and a piece of gold under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as no documents were shown to prove that duty was paid for foreign marked gold.

Acting on specific information, officers of DRI intercepted two persons travelling in the Delhi Udhampur Express train. During the investigation, it was submitted that the gold bars were purchased from one, Kashi Kumar Aggarwal, the appellant.

Kashi Kumar Agarwal, the appellant filed this appeal to assail the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), upholding the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The order, in a nutshell, upheld the confiscation of the primary gold with foreign markings but set aside the confiscation of the gold ornaments and the cash.

The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order in respect of the appellant which also involves the confiscation of the primary gold, confiscation of the jewellery, confiscation of money and imposition of penalty.

Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, nowhere indicates whether it applies to town seizures or seizures at the ports and airports. All that it states is that “any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force are liable for confiscation”.

The Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no reasonable belief for seizing the gold. Therefore, it is for the department to prove that they were smuggled goods and the department has not discharged this burden.

The Bench noted that “The appellant was in possession of foreign marked gold and had no documents to show that duty was paid on it. This gave the department reasonable belief to seize. The burden of proof is on the appellant.”

The Tribunal concluded by noting that “To sum up, we find that the gold bars and piece of gold were correctly held liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the adjudicating authority and such confiscation was correctly upheld in the impugned order.”

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader