2021 (12) TMI 915 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - gold bars / coins with foreign marking - gold bars with Indian marking - silver weighing 200 gms - Indian currency - burden to prove licit possession - absolute confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - The goods, to the extent evidenced as legally possessed, were not proceeded against and absolute confiscation was restricted on such goods that were not so established. There are no evidence that the first appellate authority had been intimated during the hearing that further documentation would be made available. Nevertheless, one set of documents is claimed by Learned Counsel for the appellant to have also been placed before the first appellate authority. In the light of the claim that licit possession of the remaining goods can be established on the basis of these documents, it would be only be appropriate for these to be scrutinized. The impugned order is set aside and matter remanded back to the original authority for further disposition of the seized goods and Indian currency in accordance with the provisions of law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold bars and coins of foreign origin and Indian currency under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Compliance with conditions of pre-deposit.
3. Consideration of supporting documents by the first appellate authority.
4. Establishment of licit possession of seized goods.
5. Scrutiny of documents to establish licit possession.
6. Remand of the matter to the original authority for further disposition.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the confiscation of 2,668.74 gms of gold bars and coins of foreign origin and Indian currency under sections 111(d), 112, 114AA, and 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority upheld the confiscation and penalties imposed by the original authority.

2. The Tribunal mentioned that the appeal was brought before them for the second time due to the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit. The Tribunal, in a previous order, had restored the matter before the first appellate authority for deciding on merits.

3. The appellant contended that the first appellate authority failed to consider the supporting documents submitted after the conclusion of the hearing. The Tribunal observed that the written submissions filed on the date of hearing were disregarded as an afterthought, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The original authority confiscated the remaining goods and Indian currency due to the absence of acceptable documentation establishing licit possession. The Tribunal noted that the responsibility to establish licit possession lies with the person from whom the goods were seized, as per section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

5. The Tribunal found that the goods legally possessed were not proceeded against, and absolute confiscation was limited to goods where licit possession was not established. The appellant claimed to have submitted additional documents to establish licit possession, which were not considered by the first appellate authority.

6. To address the issue, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for further disposition of the seized goods and Indian currency in accordance with the law. The original authority was directed to complete the proceedings within three months from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter for further consideration and directed the original authority to complete the proceedings within a specified timeframe.