2009 (4) TMI 696 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and penalty - Smuggled gold - Held that - The gold is a notified item. Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the onus is on the claimant to show the lawful possession of the gold. In the present case, the Appellant had taken the plea that the gold has been lawfully purchased from Ahmedabad, regarding which the Appellant could not produce any evidence that the consideration amount has been paid till today. The concerned person who issued the bill admitted that till 2005, he has not received any consideration amount. In the sale bill, the sale was on credit. There is not evidence on record to show that the Appellant was earlier purchasing the gold bars or silver ornaments from M/s. Lalji Bhai Kanji Bhai Soni and there is a running account in this regard - appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold bars and penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Onus of proving the gold was smuggled into India.
3. Disbelief of evidence regarding the purchase of gold from Ahmedabad.
4. Applicability of legal precedents cited by the Appellant.
5. Ownership claim of the gold based on sale bill.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant contested the Order confiscating 13 gold bars and imposing a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The incident occurred when the Appellant and others were apprehended by Customs Officials at a railway station, leading to the confiscation of the gold bars and imposition of penalties.

2. The Appellant argued that the onus was on the Revenue to prove the gold was smuggled into India. The Appellant relied on legal decisions to support this claim, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to establish the illegal importation of the gold.

3. The Appellant presented evidence of purchasing gold from Ahmedabad, which was disputed by the authorities as an afterthought. The lower authorities disbelieved this evidence, leading to the rejection of the Appellant's ownership claim based on the purchase bill.

4. The Appellant cited legal precedents to support their case, but the Revenue contended that the circumstances of the present case differed, making the cited precedents inapplicable to the situation at hand.

5. The Appellant claimed ownership of the gold based on a sale bill from a dealer in Ahmedabad. However, discrepancies between the bill and the Recovery Memo raised doubts about the legitimacy of the purchase. The Appellant failed to provide concrete evidence of lawful possession, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the final decision to dismiss the Appeal.