2016 (5) TMI 1211 - HC - Customs

Validity of Tribunal s order - Confiscation of gold bars recovered and imposition of penalty - suspected that gold bars recovered were of a foreign origin - Held that - the contention of Mr. Bhardwaj, that the gold recovered from the possession of Nand Kishore Somani, according to the clinical analysis report, contains gold content between 99.94% and 99.96% and also the certificate is a pointer to show that the gold bars could not have been of Indian origin found mo merits for various reasons. Therefore, we need not add to the reasons why the certificate is of no consequence. - Dismissed as unmeritorious

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine; Quashing of order in appeal; Validity of certificate from Jashomati Jewellers; Gold content analysis; Relevance of certificate in determining gold origin; Evidentiary value of certificate; Opportunity for cross-examination.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta dealt with an appeal challenging a judgment by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines. The case involved the interception of a vehicle where gold bars were recovered from one of the occupants, leading to suspicion of foreign origin. The occupant claimed to have purchased the gold bars from a jeweler in Kolkata and produced cash memos as evidence. Despite this, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods. In an appeal, the order was quashed, prompting the revenue to file the present appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellant relied on a certificate from Jashomati Jewellers stating the maximum purity achievable by gold refineries in Siliguri. The appellant argued that the gold recovered had a higher purity level, indicating non-Indian origin. However, the court dismissed this argument for several reasons. Firstly, the certificate referred to Siliguri, while the gold was purchased in Kolkata, rendering it irrelevant. Secondly, the court highlighted that a certificate alone holds no evidentiary value. Additionally, the certificate was obtained post the adjudicating authority's order, and the issuer did not testify before any authority to validate its contents. Moreover, the court emphasized that the accused must have the opportunity to cross-examine the certificate issuer before its contents can be used against them.

Ultimately, the High Court found the appeal to be without merit and dismissed it, imposing costs on the appellant. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for evidence to be properly scrutinized and tested through cross-examination in legal proceedings.