2003 (11) TMI 504 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Burden of proof - Confiscation of currency - Confession made - Evidence - Retraction of confession - Penalty - Quantum of - Proportionality

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency.
2. Validity of appellant's statements and confessions.
3. Imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

Confiscation of Seized Gold and Indian Currency:
The appellant, a goldsmith, had his shop and residential premises searched resulting in the seizure of gold biscuits, gold sovereigns, and Indian currency. The authorities proposed confiscation of the seized items on grounds of smuggling. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the gold items but rejected the confiscation of the Indian currency. The appellant's statements regarding the origin of the currency as personal savings were deemed reliable, and the lack of evidence to disprove this explanation led to the currency being ordered for release.

Validity of Appellant's Statements and Confessions:
The appellant made conflicting statements during the investigation process. Initially, he confessed to receiving the gold biscuits from a specific individual and explained the possession of gold sovereigns and currency. However, later, he changed his statement claiming the gold was legally acquired and the sovereigns belonged to family members. The Tribunal found the initial statements to be more credible, leading to the confiscation of the gold items due to the failure to prove lawful acquisition. The retraction made by the appellant after his arrest was rejected as unreliable.

Imposition of Penalty:
A penalty was imposed on the appellant for dealing with smuggled gold. The Tribunal deemed the penalty amount to be disproportionate and reduced it from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000. The penalty imposed on the individual supplying the smuggled gold was also reduced to Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and adjusted the penalties accordingly based on the nature of the offenses.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the confiscation of the gold items upheld, the release of the Indian currency, and the reduction of the imposed penalties on the appellant and the supplier of smuggled gold.