2 Kg Gold Hidden in Waist Belt: Calcutta HC Upholds Confiscation, Rejects ‘Town Seizure’ Defence [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court upheld the confiscation of nearly 2 kg of gold hidden in a specially stitched waist belt and rejected the defence of “town seizure,” holding that suspicious conduct and scientific evidence were sufficient to establish reasonable belief of smuggling.

The case arose from appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata against a common order of the CESTAT which had set aside the confiscation of 1,999.90 grams of gold recovered from Anil Kumar Gaur at Howrah Railway Station.

Customs officers had intercepted the carrier based on specific intelligence and recovered the gold concealed in a waist belt worn under his clothes. During the investigation, the carrier gave statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitting that the gold was of foreign origin and meant for illegal transport.

Read More: Income Tax Rule Change: Disclosure Now Mandatory for HRA Claims on Rent Paid to Father

Subsequently, Anil Kumar Soni claimed ownership of the gold and argued that it was made from melted scrap jewellery. He produced GST returns and purchased invoices to support his claim.

The revenue argued that the manner of concealment clearly indicated smuggling and that the purity of the gold, recorded at 99.5 to 99.6 percent, showed that it was refined bullion and not locally melted jewellery. They argued that no refinery documents were produced to explain how scrap gold was converted into such high purity bars.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the seizure took place in a town area and not near any international border, and since the gold did not bear foreign markings, the department could not form a reasonable belief of smuggling. They also argued that the statements were obtained under pressure and later retracted and that the GST records were sufficient to prove lawful ownership.

Read More: Important Update: CBDT Extends Deadline for Q3 TDS Certificate Issuance to March 31, 2026 [Read Circular]

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar observed that the concept of “town seizure” cannot invalidate a seizure when the conduct of the person clearly indicates illegal activity. It explained that hiding gold in a waist belt is a strong circumstance that can lead a prudent officer to form a reasonable belief of smuggling.

On the issue of confession, the court observed that statements recorded under Section 108 are admissible and carry evidentiary value. It pointed out that the retraction made after about 850 days was not reliable and appeared to be an afterthought.

The court set aside the Tribunal’s order and restored the confiscation of the gold along with penalties imposed on the respondents. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA vs SHRI ANIL KUMAR SONI , 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 521 , CUSTA 30 OF 2025 , 31 March 2026 , Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Ld. Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, , Mr. Arijit Chakraborti, Ld. Adv. Mr. N.K. Chowdhury, Ld. Adv. Ms. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Ld. Adv.