2003 (7) TMI 502 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order dated 28-2-81.
2. Confiscation of gold bars and imposition of penalty.
3. Challenge of order under Section 82 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1962.
4. Validity of appellant's statement and allegations of physical torture.
5. Consideration of evidence and rejection of appellant's contentions.
6. Merits of cross-examination of witnesses after a long period.

Analysis:

1. The matter originated as an application under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order dated 28-2-81 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. The appellant challenged the direction to deposit a penalty amount of Rs. 2,000, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, leading to the appeal being taken up for disposal by the Tribunal.

2. The appellant was intercepted while traveling in a bus on 16-4-76, leading to the recovery of primary gold and garments valued at Rs. 21,136. The gold bars were found in his possession without any documentary evidence of acquisition. The Customs officers seized the gold under the belief that it was smuggled, resulting in a show cause notice for confiscation and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2,000, which was upheld by the authorities.

3. Following the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and a challenge under Section 82 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1962, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, upheld the decision of the lower authority, which was the subject of the current challenge.

4. The Revenue's case relied on the appellant's statement admitting to bringing the gold bars from Nepal, while the appellant alleged that the statement was obtained under duress and physical torture. The appellant claimed the gold was melted in his shop for making new ornaments.

5. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found the appellant's retraction of the statement and torture allegations to be an afterthought. The statement, written by the appellant himself, was deemed admissible evidence, especially since it contained details only known to him. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the gold as smuggled based on this evidence.

6. The appellant's request for cross-examination of witnesses after 28 years was rejected due to potential unavailability of witnesses and records. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it accordingly, affirming the confiscation of the gold bars and the penalty imposed.