2018 (2) TMI 32 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Gold is being melted in one Furnace - smuggling - Held that - In the present case, there is no material available that the goods are imported - the goods were seized at a melting shop at Kolkata, it is a registered melting shop and there is no material available that the goods are of foreign origin and therefore the confiscation of the goods is not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, erroneous filing of additional appeal, confiscation of gold, burden of proof, justification of confiscation

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application by the Revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The delay is condoned based on reasons provided in the application, and the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. However, an additional appeal erroneously filed by the Registry is dismissed as infructuous. Subsequently, two appeals regarding the confiscation of gold are taken up for final disposal.

The case involves the seizure of gold from a workshop where it was being melted without valid procurement documents. The Customs Officers found 25 cut pieces of gold bars being melted without proper documentation. The Respondents claimed that the gold was provided by a jewelry shop jointly owned by them. A Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalties, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), granting relief to the Respondents.

The Revenue filed appeals challenging the Commissioner's decision. During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the Respondents submitted documents after a significant delay from the date of seizure, and one of the purchasers did not respond to summons. The burden of proof regarding the gold being of foreign origin was emphasized, as it is a notified item under the Customs Act. The Commissioner's findings highlighted that there was no evidence indicating foreign origin of the seized gold, and suspicion alone cannot lead to confiscation.

The judgment further delves into the legal provisions regarding confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, emphasizing the requirement of imported goods for confiscation under Section 111. It is noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the seized goods were imported. The burden of proof under Section 123 is discussed, stating that in the absence of material indicating smuggled goods, the confiscation is not justified. The Respondents' inability to produce documents at the time of seizure is addressed, with the conclusion that the confiscation of the goods is not warranted.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence, burden of proof, and adherence to legal provisions in cases involving confiscation of goods under the Customs Act.