2004 (12) TMI 457 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the absolute confiscation of gold jewellery weighing 9819.830 gms.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of the evidence (statements and chits) used to support the case.
4. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Compliance with Circular No. 91/2000-Cus., dated 20-11-2000.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Absolute Confiscation of Gold Jewellery Weighing 9819.830 gms:
The adjudicating authority ordered the absolute confiscation of gold jewellery weighing 9819.830 gms under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the FTDR Act, 1992. However, the judgment noted that the adjudicating authority failed to cite the specific section of the FTDR Act that was violated. The court observed that Section 111(d) pertains to goods imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by law. The evidence presented, including statements from co-accused and certain chits, did not substantiate the claim that the gold jewellery was smuggled.

2. Imposition of Penalties Under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Penalties were imposed on various appellants ranging from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 5,00,000. The appellants argued that the gold jewellery was lawfully acquired and accounted for, and the adjudicating authority overlooked these facts. The court found that the adjudicating authority's decision was based on uncorroborated statements and chits that did not have evidentiary value. Therefore, the imposition of penalties was deemed unjustified.

3. Validity of the Evidence (Statements and Chits) Used to Support the Case:
The case relied heavily on statements from co-accused and chits recovered from the residence of one Damodaran. The court noted that these statements were not corroborated, and the chits did not explicitly relate to the dealings of the appellants. The court emphasized that no material evidence was presented to prove that the gold jewellery was smuggled, rendering the evidence insufficient to support the confiscation and penalties.

4. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority invoked Section 123, which shifts the burden of proving the licit nature of goods to the noticee. However, the court found this invocation unwarranted as no evidence was presented to prove that the goods were smuggled. The court highlighted that the appellants had accounted for the gold jewellery through lawful purchases from SBI and MMTC, and there was no basis for assuming the goods were smuggled.

5. Compliance with Circular No. 91/2000-Cus., dated 20-11-2000:
The appellants argued that the seizure violated Circular No. 91/2000-Cus., which advises against seizing gem and jewellery stock of exporters for technical reasons. The court noted that the Circular was binding on the authorities and criticized the DRI officers for disregarding it. The court concluded that the seizure was effected without any material basis, violating the Circular's guidelines.

Conclusion:
The court found that the department failed to provide concrete evidence to support the claims of smuggling and unlawful acquisition of gold jewellery. The adjudicating authority's decision to confiscate the gold jewellery and impose penalties was based on unsubstantiated statements and irrelevant chits. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.