1991 (5) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against orders passed by the Additional Collector of Customs
- Contravention of Section 11K of the Customs Act, 1962
- Confiscation of silver slabs under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the orders of the Additional Collector of Customs regarding the confiscation of silver slabs based on the contravention of Section 11K of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that there was no evidence to prove that the silver bullion was transported without a proper voucher from Dumariaganj region of U.P. The Department issued a show cause notice under Sections 11K and 11L of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging the silver slabs were not properly accounted for. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the appellant contravened Section 11K, leading to the confiscation of the silver slabs.

2. Under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, specified goods contravening provisions of Chapter IVB can be confiscated. The Adjudicating Authority found a violation of Section 11K as the silver slabs were transhipped from Dumariaganj region of U.P. However, there was no substantial evidence to support this claim. The Authority also noted discrepancies in the appellant's declarations to the Income Tax Authorities regarding the weight of silver slabs. The appellant's explanation that the slabs were brought from Mathura for ornament manufacturing was rejected due to lack of proper documentation.

3. The Adjudicating Authority accepted a statement from the appellant's brother that the seized silver slabs were manufactured from old ornaments in a refinery at Mathura. This acceptance raised doubts on the claim that the slabs were transhipped from Dumariaganj region of U.P. The lack of evidence supporting the transportation from Dumariaganj region led to the conclusion that no contravention of Section 11K was established. Consequently, the confiscation of the silver slabs under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief.