2023 (10) TMI 122 - AT - Customs

Seeking stay of disposal of seized gold dore bars - gold in question has requisite purity of less than 95% or not - HELD THAT - There are contradictory reports about the purity of 27 number of gold dore bars in question. It is pertinent to note here that gold dore bars should have the purity of less than/ upto 95% while being imported. The reports on record are observed to be both ways, i.e. less than 95% as well as more than 95%. In these circumstances, clause 2.4.3 of the guidelines for disposal of seized goods as produced by the department is relied upon. In the present case appellant is claiming it to be licensed importer of the gold dore bars - Learned Authorised Representative has acknowledged that no reply has so far been received from the DRI with respect to the disposal of impugned seized gold. Also it is observed that the period of two months from the date of seizure, as is prescribed under the guidelines produced by the department, stands already expired. It is deemed necessary that the seized gold bar shall not be disposed of till further orders as may be passed. It is also held relevant that the impugned appeal be disposed of expeditiously. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Stay of disposal of seized 'gold dore bars' due to contradictory purity reports and statutory guidelines for disposal.

1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application requesting a stay on the disposal of seized 'gold dore bars' due to conflicting purity reports. Reports from different sources assessed the purity differently, reflecting arbitrariness on the part of the department. The appellant obtained these reports through an application under the Right to Information Act. The appellant prayed for the seized gold to be restrained from disposal until they have a fair opportunity to prove its purity.

2. The department's Authorized Representative argued that the seized gold bars fall under category 2 for disposal as per statutory guidelines, mandating disposal within two months of seizure. The department contended that the appellant has no right to seek restraint against disposal and requested the application to be dismissed.

3. After hearing both parties, the tribunal noted contradictory reports on the purity of the seized 'gold dore bars'. The guidelines state that gold bars should have a purity of less than or up to 95% when imported. As reports showed varying purities, the tribunal relied on clause 2.4.3 of the disposal guidelines, emphasizing the need to expedite investigation and adjudication proceedings when the party claims legal ownership. The tribunal observed that the appellant claimed to be a licensed importer of the gold bars.

4. The panchanama prepared by the DRI officer at the time of seizure directed safe custody of the goods and prohibited disposal without permission. The department acknowledged not receiving a reply from the DRI regarding the disposal of the seized gold, which exceeded the two-month disposal deadline as per guidelines.

5. Considering the conflicting reports and expired disposal deadline, the tribunal ordered that the seized gold bars should not be disposed of until further orders are passed. The tribunal emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal and adjourned the case for final submissions on a later date.