2002 (8) TMI 689 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of gold biscuits, imposition of personal penalty under Customs Act, validity of seizure, justification of confiscation and penalty, legality of search and seizure, involuntary statement, proof of legally imported gold, justification for erasing markings on gold biscuits, delay in adjudication.

Confiscation and Penalty:
The appellant was found with 11 pcs. of foreign gold biscuits without valid documents, leading to confiscation and a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 under the Customs Act. The appellant claimed to have purchased the gold from a company, but the markings on the seized gold did not match the purchased ones. The tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty, stating that erasing the markings raised suspicion, justifying the authorities' actions.

Legality of Search and Seizure:
The appellant challenged the legality of the search, questioning the authorization and reasoning behind it. However, the tribunal ruled that as these issues were not raised earlier, they could not be considered at this stage. The Revenue was not obligated to disclose specific information received during the search.

Involuntary Statement and Proof of Legally Imported Gold:
The appellant argued that his initial statement was involuntary and presented evidence of legally importing the gold. However, the tribunal found no evidence of coercion during the statement and noted the lack of cooperation in producing records during the investigation. The tribunal upheld the confiscation, as the markings on the seized gold had been tampered with.

Justification for Erasing Markings on Gold Biscuits:
The appellant claimed to have erased the markings on the gold biscuits to avoid detection, but the tribunal found this action suspicious, especially since the purchased gold had distinct markings. The tribunal concluded that tampering with the markings cast doubt on the legitimacy of the seized gold, justifying the confiscation and penalty.

Delay in Adjudication:
The appellant argued that the adjudication took place five years after the seizure, questioning the validity of the order due to delay. The tribunal acknowledged the delay but held that there was no legal time limit for adjudication. While expressing displeasure over the delay, the tribunal deemed it insufficient to invalidate the order based on timing.