2023 (9) TMI 198 - AT - Customs

Seeking release of seized gold - smuggling - possession acquired licitly of illicitly - Discharge of onus to prove - retraction of statements - HELD THAT - All the sets of these invoices have been found be false, forged, fictitious, manipulated and hence ab initio void. Invoices recovered/produced at the time of seizure were initially claimed as cover documents for the acquisition of the seized gold. R.K Angangbi Singh, the claimant of the said gold himself had negated these invoices and he produced different set of invoices on 09.09.2014 claiming them as the actual set of documents for the said gold under seizure - It is thus apparent that R.K Angangbi Singh had produced/submitted different sets of invoices in a deliberate attempt to mislead the investigations and as an act of afterthought as well as to justify transportation of smuggled goods and in an attempt to discharge the onus cast upon the under Section 123 of the Act. It is evident that the description of the purchase invoices in transit challan produced before the Hon ble High Court, Shillong did not tally with the purchase invoices recovered at the time of seizure. Since, the transit challan records did not match with the recovered purchase invoices it is clear that the transit challan too were fabricated, and presented subsequently, like various other documents and submitted as an afterthought perhaps to even mislead the judiciary; besides being a failed attempt to justify transportation of the smuggled goods. The Hon ble Supreme Court in case of KI. PAVUNNY VERSUS ASSTT. COLLR. (HQ.) , C. EX. COLLECTORATE, COCHIN 1997 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT had held that a mere general corroboration is sufficient and each of the detail was not required to be gone into. It even upheld the validity of the statement, containing wealth of information that was retracted in close proximity of making it and therefore disallowed the said retraction. Thus, no case is made out by the appellants, calling for interference in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner. The same is therefore upheld and the appeals filed are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of Seizure of Gold Biscuits.
2. Validity of Documentation Provided by Appellants.
3. Compliance with Customs Act, 1962.
4. Previous Offenses and Falsification of Records.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of Seizure of Gold Biscuits:
The appellants' gold biscuits were seized by Railway Protection Force (RPF) on 26.08.2014 at Dimapur Railway Station. The gold, concealed in the waistlines of two women, was found to be of foreign origin without any markings or valid documents. The seized gold was suspected to be smuggled from Myanmar, as the weight and purity matched commonly seized gold at the Indo-Myanmar border.

2. Validity of Documentation Provided by Appellants:
The appellants provided multiple sets of invoices from M/s Magna Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, at different stages of the investigation. However, these invoices were found to be fake, forged, and manipulated. The original invoices did not match the description of the seized gold. The appellants failed to provide consistent and genuine documentation to establish the licit acquisition of the gold.

3. Compliance with Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants violated Sections 7(1)(c) and 11(c) and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962, making the gold liable for confiscation under Sections 111(b) and 111(d). The appellants could not discharge their onus under Section 123 of the Act to prove the legitimate acquisition of the gold.

4. Previous Offenses and Falsification of Records:
The investigation revealed that some appellants were previously involved in gold smuggling cases. The falsification of PAN numbers, non-maintenance of proper records, and submission of fake invoices further indicated a pattern of illegal activities. The appellants' repeated attempts to legitimize the seized gold through fabricated documents were deemed as deliberate attempts to mislead the authorities and judiciary.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned Commissioner of Customs, dismissing the appeals. The appellants failed to establish the licit acquisition of the seized gold, and their arguments were considered as attempts to cover up illegal activities. The appeals were dismissed, and the confiscation of the gold was upheld.