2024 (6) TMI 634 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - gold bars of foreign origin - Seizure and confiscation of gold bars - persons could not produce any documents in respect of the goods in question - HELD THAT - It is seen from the Show Cause Notice that the officials of DRI have searched two persons while they were boarding Delhi bound Brahmaputra Mail on 20.06.2016. The DRI maintained a vigil at Kamakhya Railway Station and two persons were intercepted by the DRI officials. Trolley bags carried by them were searched and it was found that cavities were made inside the trolley bags to conceal the gold bars. The officers found 4 yellow metal bars likely to be primary gold of foreign origin. The intercepted persons could not produce any documents in respect of the goods in question. There are no reason to interfere with the detailed order passed by the Adjudicating authority - no specific evidence has been brought to the contrary by the Appellant in their grounds of Appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure and confiscation of gold bars.
2. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.
3. Evaluation of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Legality of the adjudicating authority's order.

Summary:

1. Seizure and Confiscation of Gold Bars:
The issue pertains to the seizure and confiscation of gold bars weighing 2405 grams valued at Rs. 73,11,200/-. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials intercepted two individuals at Kamakhya Railway Station on 20.06.2016. The gold bars were concealed inside trolley bags. The intercepted individuals could not produce any documents for the gold. The gold was tested and certified as 24 Kt purity by M/s. A.K. Jewellers. The adjudicating authority confiscated the gold bars absolutely u/s 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants:
The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on Appellant A. Mohammad Dhariq and Rs. 2,00,000 on T. Jaffar Sathik u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants filed appeals against these penalties.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority relied on the statements given by the appellants u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, where they admitted to smuggling gold from Myanmar to India. The statements detailed their modus operandi and were corroborated by each other. The appellants later claimed these statements were involuntary and false, but the adjudicating authority found no evidence of coercion or duress. The statements were considered credible and factual.

4. Legality of the Adjudicating Authority's Order:
The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the detailed order passed by the adjudicating authority. The appellants did not provide any specific evidence to counter the findings. The tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the gold bars and trolley bags and the penalties imposed on the appellants.

Order:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision.