9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the acquisition of gold bars by the appellant. 2. Confiscation of Indian currency found with the appellant. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the acquisition of gold bars by the appellant The appellant claimed that the gold bars seized were part of a purchase confirmed by the seller, arguing that since gold is freely importable and tradable, it should not be liable for confiscation. However, the department contended that the appellant had no valid documentation for the acquisition, with missing details such as buyer's name, serial numbers, and markings on the gold bars. The appellant's admission of illegal gold trading and lack of proper accounts further weakened their case. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove lawful acquisition, upholding the confiscation of the gold bars. Nevertheless, the penalty was reduced due to case circumstances. Issue 2: Confiscation of Indian currency found with the appellant Regarding the Indian currency confiscation, the department failed to provide evidence linking it to smuggled goods' sale proceeds. Despite the appellant's unexplained possession of unaccounted currency, the Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the department. As a result, the confiscation of the currency was set aside due to insufficient evidence. However, considering the questionable source of the currency, the Tribunal recommended informing the Income Tax authorities before releasing the amount to the appellant. The appeal was partly allowed, with the penalty reduced and the Indian currency confiscation set aside. This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and burden of proof in cases involving confiscated goods and currency. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for clear evidence to establish lawful acquisition and the consequences of unexplained possession of unaccounted assets.
|
