9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of gold 'lagadies' and gold guineas under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; Confirmation of personal penalty of Rs. 25,000 against the appellant. Analysis: 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the confiscation of 10 gold 'lagadies' and 75 gold guineas of foreign origin under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000 against the appellant. The search conducted at the business premises resulted in the recovery of gold bars from the appellant's possession, disclaimed by him as belonging to his employer. The lack of documentation for lawful import led to the confiscation under the Customs Act. 2. The appellant argued that the gold guineas were inherited and kept in safe custody, thus unable to produce import-related documents. The defense emphasized the family's possession of such coins as valuable assets, traded in the market. Citing a Tribunal decision, the appellant sought the benefit of doubt, challenging the presumption of smuggling based on markings like King George VI. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim of possession through inheritance. Considering the historical use of gold guineas as legal tender, the Tribunal emphasized the need for independent evidence to establish smuggling. Drawing parallels with a precedent, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant, setting aside the confiscation of the gold guineas. 4. Regarding the penalty imposed for dealing with the gold guineas contrary to law, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the confiscation due to lack of proof of smuggling nature rendered the penalty invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefit to the appellant by overturning the confiscation and penalty, given the lack of substantiating evidence for illegal possession or activity.
|
