9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Time-barred appeal rejection by Appellate Tribunal. 2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. 3. Appeal against the order of Central Board of Excise & Customs. 4. Release of gold and gold jewellery under Gold (Control) Act. 5. Application of Section 123 of the Customs Act. 6. Burden of proof in proving goods as smuggled. 7. Discrepancies in statements and affidavits. 8. Admissibility of belated affidavits. 9. Reasonable belief in seizure of goods. 10. Final judgment and benefit of doubt to the appellant. Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by the appellant was initially rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Tribunal. However, the delay was condoned by the Calcutta High Court, leading to a fresh hearing of the appeal on merits. 2. The case involved the confiscation of gold ornaments, diamonds, and diamond-studded jewelry from the appellant's premises under both the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. Various orders were passed imposing penalties and confirming confiscations, leading to the appeal against the Central Board of Excise & Customs' decision. 3. The appellant's advocate argued that certain items were released under the Gold (Control) Act, indicating no involvement of contraband gold. He contested the application of Section 123 of the Customs Act and the burden of proof on the appellant to establish the goods were not smuggled. 4. The respondent highlighted the independence of proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act and Customs Act, emphasizing the invocation of Section 123 due to the nature of the seized products. The respondent also pointed out discrepancies in statements and the inadmissibility of belated affidavits. 5. The presiding judge considered the findings under the Gold (Control) Act proceedings, concluding that the redeemed gold and jewelry were not of smuggled nature. The judge analyzed the application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for prima facie grounds to justify the belief of goods being smuggled. 6. The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, citing the lack of conclusive proof of the goods being of smuggled origin. The judgment emphasized the necessity for the seizing officer to prove reasonable belief for invoking Section 123, providing the benefit of doubt to the appellant due to insufficient evidence of smuggling. This comprehensive analysis delves into the various legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the final judgment rendered by the Appellate Tribunal, covering the intricacies of the case and the application of relevant legal provisions.
|
