2000 (12) TMI 526 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of smuggled gold from two individuals and a residential premises.
2. Confiscation of seized gold and imposition of penalties on the appellants.
3. Retraction of statements by the appellants and its evidentiary value.
4. Claim that the gold rods were made from old customer ornaments.
5. Defense that the gold rods were traditional bangles worn by local women.

Analysis:
1. The Customs Officers intercepted two individuals carrying gold rods made from primary gold bars of foreign origin. Statements indicated the gold belonged to one of the appellants. The Commissioner confiscated the gold and imposed penalties based on the seizure.

2. The Commissioner imposed penalties on the appellants after adjudication. The appellants contested, claiming the gold was not smuggled, and retracted their statements. The Commissioner found the retraction belated and lacking credibility, upholding the penalties and confiscation of gold.

3. The appellants argued the gold rods were made from old customer ornaments. However, they failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The onus to prove the gold's origin lay with the appellants, and their plea was rejected due to lack of evidence.

4. The appellants contended that the gold rods were traditional bangles worn by local women. Yet, they presented no evidence to support this assertion. The defense was deemed unsubstantiated, especially considering the earlier statements that were found credible.

5. One of the appellants claimed ownership of a gold strip made from remnants of gold. Benefit of doubt was given, and the strip was ordered to be released. No evidence linked this strip to smuggling activities, leading to the release and the removal of the imposed penalty on that appellant.