Gold Traders Allege Statement Recorded Under Duress: Calcutta HC Maintains Status Quo, Asks Evidence for Forgery [Read Order]
The Court maintained the status quo on seized assets but allowed opportunity for evidence if forgery can be proved.
The High Court at Calcutta disposed of the petition, while maintaining status quo, challenging the seizure of gold pieces and cash under Section 110 of theCustoms Act, 1962. The appellant alleged that documents extending the time for issuing show cause notice had been forged and that the recorded statements made by him had been made under duress.
The appellant, Naim Ali Mallick alias Naim Ali Mullick, is the Chief Staff at HALLMARK Assay Centre located at Hooghly with a valid trade licence. The establishment tests gold purity and trades in gold ornaments. Customs officials seized two gold pieces along with INR 19,77,500/- in cash and transported the items to Customs House in Kolkata. Here, a Panchnama was prepared and while in detention, the appellant recorded his statement.
The seizure took place on 18.01.2024 but the Show Cause Notice was dated 15.07.2024, which was received by 07.08.2024. The notice was issued by an extension of the six-month period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, this was granted on 10.07.2024 by the Superintendent of Customs. The appellant then lodged an FIR alleging forgery of the extension documents.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the extension letter dated 10.07.2024 has been forged or tampered with, claiming a mismatched logo, anomalous signature placement and appellant’s absence from the Customs House which has been corroborated by mobile tower data. The counsel also submits that blank papers were signed by the appellant on 18.01.2024. Strong reliance was placed on the proviso to Section 110(2).
Other arguments included the acceptance of documents without forensic verification, the delayed sequence of issuance of show cause notice and the respondents’ failure to produce e-office records. The appellant sought for quashing of the seizure, immediate release of goods and the Court to direct probes into forensic and mobile data evidence.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Customs authorities submitted that the Commissioner approved extension because of investigation needs and the same had been intimated to the appellant. Additionally, it was claimed that the appellant’s non-cooperation justified the extension. The counsel for the authorities contended that no such complaint regarding blank signatures had been raised earlier.
The High Court observed the importance of the Adjudicating Authority under the Customs Act, making interference contradictory to its statutory role. The High Court noted that the seized goods whose claimed Indian origins remained contestable and pending investigation. The contentions of forensic examination fall within the domain of Adjudicating Authority rather than writ proceedings.
The bench, comprising Justice Rajarishi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar, disposed of the petition and gave an opportunity to provide evidence on forgery and procedural compliance claims. The seized assets were held to be only remedial under Section 110A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
