2015 (11) TMI 1403 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Identity of owner of gold and source not known - Held that - Shri Shyam Lal Pal was intercepted on 02.06.1999 outside the Railways Station, Bikaner carrying 10 gold biscuits and 3 pieces of gold who stated that he is an employee of Shri Gopal Chand alias Gopal Sita for delivery of the said gold to Shri Shyam Sunder Soni. When Shri Gopal was interrogated he revealed that he has purchased the said gold from the appellant before me who on interrogation revealed that he has purchased the gold from Shri R K International, Chandni Chowk, Delhi against an invoice and showed all the documents for procurement of gold through proper channel. When the appellant has been able to show the source of procurement by proper channel and on payment thereof. In these circumstances, the order of this Tribunal dated 13.05.2005 held that Shri Shyam Lal Pal, Gopal Chand alias Gopal Sita and Shyam Sunder Soni are not the owner of the impugned goods. In those circumstances, only the appellant is the owner of the impugned goods. - there is no dispute regarding the identity of the appellant as well as ownership thereof, further, the appellant has been able to establish the proper source of the procurement of the impugned goods. In that circumstances, I hold that impugned goods are not liable for confiscation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Identification of the real owner of impugned goods, validity of earlier order, ownership of the impugned goods, appeal consideration based on identity and ownership.

Analysis:
The appellant claimed to be the real owner of impugned goods consisting of gold biscuits and pieces of gold. The goods were initially recovered from Shri Shyam Lal Pal, who disclosed he was carrying them for delivery. Subsequent investigations revealed a chain of transactions leading to the appellant as the ultimate purchaser. Earlier appeals by different individuals were disposed of, establishing the appellant as the true owner. However, a doubt arose regarding the identity of the appellant, leading to a fresh adjudication. The Ld. Counsel argued for the earlier order to be made operative, but the Tribunal rejected this premise, necessitating a fresh consideration of the appeal.

During the fresh hearing, the Ld. Counsel reiterated that the appellant's ownership had been confirmed in a previous order, supported by all parties. The appellant's ownership and the source of procurement were undisputed. The appellant had demonstrated the legitimate acquisition of the goods through proper channels and payment. Consequently, the Tribunal held that only the appellant was the rightful owner of the impugned goods, absolving them from confiscation and any penalty. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to release the goods to the appellant based on the established ownership and procurement details.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal, confirming the appellant's ownership, the legitimate source of procurement, and the non-imposition of penalties. The decision was based on the undisputed identity of the appellant and the proper documentation showing the lawful acquisition of the impugned goods.