2023 (10) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Ex-parte order - no response to SCN provided - Smuggling - 6 kg. gold of purity 999.99 Carat concealed in a machine - burden to prove - HELD THAT - The appellant did not respond to the CELEBI notice it did not respond to the show cause notice issued under Section 124 the appellant also fail to respond three notices of personal hearing where after the impugned order was passed ex-parte. The recovery notice which is mentioned to be a source of knowledge to the appellant about the impugned proceedings has also been issued on the same address on which were issued the earlier notices including the show cause notice. It is observed that during investigation it was revealed that the address mentioned on both AWB is of the premises belonged to one Mrs. Indu Sharma Statement of Shri Saurabh Sharma son of Mrs. Indu Sharma was recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 09.06.2015 in which he, interalia, stated that said shop was rented out to Shri Sumeet Jain S/o Shri S.C. Jain, resident of 1480 Sector 21, Gurgaon from October 2013 to May 2014 which belonged to Shri R.K. Grover, resident of C-427, 1st Floor, C.R. Park, New Delhi who vide his statement dated 10.06.2015 stated that he was owner of premises 1480, Sector 21, Gurgaon. Shri Subhash Jain was his tenant at his property 1480, Sector 21, Gurgoan from 2003-2006. These facts when seen with IEC it becomes clear that the registered person of that IEC i.e. Shri Sumeet Jain the Proprietor of present appellant is the only person connected to the impugned AWB. He has not produced any evidence to show that the IEC has been forged in his name without his knowledge. He has not produced any document. Learned Departmental Representative has also placed on record the communication received from Assistant Commissioner of Customs review dated 17.12.2019 showing that the department has made sufficient compliance of Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - the Adjudicating Authority has meticulously summarized the grounds for order absolute confiscation of the gold and the packing machines seized and to order penalty on the appellant. There are no reason to differ from those findings. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Smuggling of gold bars concealed in machines imported from Hong Kong, Allegation of illicit smuggling without valid documents, Ex-parte order passed without appellant's appearance, Appellant's denial of involvement in the consignment, Department's reliance on evidence and Adjudicating Authority's decision.

Summary:

The case involves the smuggling of 6 kg gold bars concealed in machines imported from Hong Kong, with the consignee being a fictitious firm. Customs officers detained the machines after finding gold concealed in them, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation and penalty. The appellant denied involvement, claiming lack of communication and knowledge of the consignment.

The investigation revealed discrepancies in addresses associated with the consignee, the appellant, and the actual premises. The Adjudicating Authority found that the circumstances, including lack of claimants and non-existence of the consignee firm, supported the conclusion of smuggling. The appellant failed to respond to notices and evidence linking them to the consignment.

The appellant's defense of being wrongly implicated was countered by the Department's reliance on records and statements, indicating the appellant's connection to the smuggled gold. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to confiscate the gold and impose penalties was upheld, dismissing the appeal. Compliance with Customs Act provisions was noted, affirming the order's validity.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision based on the evidence and findings, dismissing the appeal against the ex-parte order confirming the confiscation of smuggled gold bars and imposition of penalties.