9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962 (the Act), a Maruti car under Section 115(2) and imposing penalties on S/Shri S. Rajagoapal, E. Noushad and P. Shameer under Section 112(b) of the Act. The facts of the case are that on 16-11-2000, 100 numbers of gold bars of foreign origin seized by the police had been handed over to the officers of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore, along with a Maruti car, two cellphones, and the occupants of the car S/Shri E. Noushad and P. Shameer. Interrogation of the occupants of the car revealed that Shri E. Noushad had procured gold bars from one Shri S. Rajagopal, a licenced gold dealer at Coimbatore. On 14-11-2000, Shri Rajagopal had purchased 200 gold bars of foreign origin from Indian Overseas Bank, Oppanakkara Street, Coimb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht, date as 3-11-2000, along with the seized packets which contained the gold bars. No such printed paper was found with the packets of gold bars available in the bank. The gold received by the bank on 4-11-2000 and 7-11-2000 had been shipped on 30-10-2000 and 3-11-2000 respectively and the port of shipment was Johannesburg as per the related airway bills. As per the airway bills, the TT bars had been consigned directly from the vault of M/s. BRINKS SA (PTY) Ltd., P.O. Box No. 14119, Whitefield 1467 R.S.A for delivering the gold bars to IOB, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore. That the gold bars were bearing the markings Rand Refineries Ltd. South Africa had been confirmed by a fax dated 18-1-2001 received from M/s. BRINKS SA (PTY) Ltd., R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old bars had not been legally seized as the officers had not entertained any reasonable belief before effecting the seizure. It was illegal on the part of the adjudicating authority to have ignored the deposition of the Manager, IOB during cross-examination that he had not been able to identify the logo inscribed on the gold bars. The adjudicating authority had acted illegally in rejecting the alternative plea of the appellant for release of the gold bars on payment of redemption fine. The car and the cellphones had been confiscated illegally. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants reiterated the grounds in the appeal. He prayed that the appellants were eligible for redemption of gold bars and cellphones seized from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 110 of the Act. Once the gold bars came in the possession of the customs authorities and were found to be not licitly acquired, its confiscation and imposing penalties on the concerned were legal. This position was affirmed by the Apex court in Harbans Lal v. Collector of CE, Chandigarh reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.). 6. In the instant case, there was no categorical denial by any bank official during cross-examination, of the information elicited from them initially to the effect that the imported gold bars from which Shri S. Rajagopal had received the impugned supply had borne the marking Rand Refinery Ltd. R.S.A. and the seized gold bore the markings Switzerland Fine . The impugned order had therefore been passed in accorda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
