2017 (9) TMI 597 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Gold Bar of Foreign origin - whether the said gold bar seized by the Customs officers is of smuggled nature? - Held that - There is no dispute that the seized gold bar is of foreign origin - the ownership of the gold is not the mitigating factor for confiscation under the Customs Act. Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides confiscation of improperly imported goods etc.. In the present case, the documents would show that the seized gold is not improperly imported goods and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the confiscation of the seized gold. There is no allegation of fake documents placed by the respondents. There is no allegation that the foreign markings bearing on the seized gold are not genuine. It is established from the record that the marking bearing the seized gold are tallied with the documents. There is no material available on record that the other gold bar is available, bearing the same number. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold bar under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Ownership of the seized gold bar.
3. Allegations of unauthorized import of the gold bar.
4. Verification of documents and chain of events regarding the gold bar.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the case was whether the gold bar seized by Customs officers was of smuggled nature. The Revenue argued that the gold bar was not sold to the Respondent No.1 but to another entity. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) found that the gold bar with serial number B-49424 had been legally imported into India. The documents produced by the respondents supported this claim, and the Revenue did not dispute this fact. The ownership of the gold was deemed irrelevant for confiscation under the Customs Act, and since the seized gold was not improperly imported goods, the confiscation was rightly set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals).

2. The absence of supporting documents with the second appellant did not affect the finding that the confiscated gold bar had been legally imported into India. The serial number on the gold bar was unique, and it matched the documents provided by the respondents. The Customs officers did not find any evidence that the gold bar had been tampered with. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

3. Additionally, there were no allegations of fake documents or counterfeit markings on the seized gold bar. The markings on the gold were genuine and matched the documents, indicating that the gold was legally imported. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents' counsel that there was no evidence of another gold bar with the same serial number. As such, there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.

4. The chain of events regarding the transfer of the gold bar was crucial in determining ownership and legality of import. The documents and records presented by the respondents supported the claim that the gold bar was legally imported. The Tribunal found no grounds to challenge the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision based on the evidence and arguments presented. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) was upheld, and the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.