2013 (7) TMI 722 - HC - Customs

Validity of order - Confiscation of goods panelty u/s 111 - show cause notices were issued and adjudication orders were passed holding that the petitioners had smuggled gold into India which was liable to be confiscated under Section 119 and penalty was imposed u/s 111 Held that - the order was valid and no interference could be made - the authorities had taken precaution by taking expert opinion of a certified gold smith and jewellery appraiser The jewellery appraiser was cross-examined by advocate decided against the assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold articles by Customs Officers upon arrival in India.
2. Adjudication orders confiscating smuggled gold under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Appeal against the adjudication orders and subsequent revision petitions.
4. Contention regarding the purity of gold articles and refusal of re-testing.
5. Dispute over factual findings and the role of the writ Court.
6. Examination of expert opinions on the purity and nature of seized gold articles.
7. Discrepancies in the affidavit of a goldsmith and comparison with seized articles.
8. Comparison with a previous tribunal judgment on a similar case.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the case of a couple returning to India from London, intercepted by Customs Officers for wearing undeclared gold articles. The petitioners' child was also found wearing gold articles. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued, leading to adjudication orders confiscating the gold under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The adjudication orders imposed penalties on the petitioners for smuggling gold into India. In the first appeal, one petitioner partly succeeded, while the other did not receive any relief. Revision petitions under Section 129 DD of the Act were filed but were unsuccessful.

3. The petitioners contended that they were not concealing the gold articles and requested re-testing, citing a tribunal decision. However, the Court emphasized its role as a writ Court and its limitation in re-examining factual findings.

4. Expert opinions confirmed the purity and nature of the seized gold articles, with discrepancies noted in the affidavit of a goldsmith regarding the weight and description of the crafted gold articles.

5. A previous tribunal judgment cited by the petitioners was distinguished as the present case involved expert opinions and careful examination, unlike the lack of expert opinion in the previous case.

6. Ultimately, the Court found no justification for interference with the impugned orders, as they recorded factual findings and considered all relevant facts. The writ petitions were dismissed without costs.