2006 (3) TMI 647 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of primary gold believed to be smuggled.
2. Allegations of carrying, transporting, and dealing in smuggled gold.
3. Confiscation of primary gold and imposition of penalties.
4. Appeal challenging the confiscation and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was found staying at a hotel where Customs officers seized primary gold, gold ornaments, and currency, suspecting the gold to be smuggled. A statement from the appellant implicated gold dealers from Jaipur. The appellant contested the charge, claiming to be an employee of a Bombay gold dealer and denying the gold was smuggled.

2. After investigation, a show-cause notice was issued, alleging the gold was liable for confiscation and penalties for dealing in smuggled gold. The appellant's contentions were rejected, leading to the confiscation of the gold under the Customs Act and imposition of penalties on the appellant and Jaipur gold dealers.

3. Appeals were filed challenging the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Jaipur dealers' appeals but confirmed the confiscation and penalties on the appellant. The main evidence for the smuggling charge was foreign markings on the gold, which the appellant refuted with evidence of being a genuine gold dealer.

4. The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove the gold was smuggled. The appellant's activities, including sales of gold ornaments, account slips, and travel documents, supported his claim of being a legitimate gold salesman. The absence of specific evidence on the gold's smuggled nature led to the appeal's success, setting aside the previous order.