9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession of the gold as recovered. 3. The department considered the recovered gold as smuggled one. Accordingly, seized it under Section 110 of Customs Act and served a notice of confiscation thereof under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 . In the statement of Shyam Lal Pal as was recorded on 02.06.1999 itself, he stated that the said gold was given to him by his owner, Mr. Gopal Sita, owner of Shop No. 668 , Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk on 01.06.1999 with the directions to deliver the same to Shri Shyam Sunder Soni of Thakuro Ka Mohalla, Bikaner. However, said Shri Gopal Sita on being interrogated denied any affiliation with Shyam Lal Pal . Shyam Sunder Soni statement could be recorded only on 22.06.1999 that to in furtherance of directions of Additional Session Judge, Jodhpur who stated Shyam Lal to be the servant of Shri Badri Narayan Sharma of M/s Dhancholia Sons. He also stated that he placed an order for gold with said Shri Badri Narayan Sharma. Statement of Shri Badri Narayan Sharma was also got recorded on 04.08.1999 who stated about giving the 10 gold bars with Bill No. 3 dated 01.06.1999 to Shri Shyam Lal Pal to deliver the same to Shyam Sunder Soni at Bikaner. Thus ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the present case admittedly, no such notice was issued. The disposal of the gold, therefore, is bad in law. Appellant, therefore, is entitled either for the return of the gold seized. Finally, submitting that irrespective there was the dispute regarding the ownership of the goods, the procedure laid down for disposal of the goods as per Department's manual was strictly to be followed. The failure thereof entitles the Appellant to have the present market value of the gold disposed of. Order under challenge is, accordingly, prayed to be set aside, appeal is prayed to be allowed. 7. Per contra learned DR has submitted that the initial show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order dated 23.03.2000 the confiscation of the seized gold was confirmed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 566-569/2004 dated 31.08.2004. It is further submitted that there was ambiguities about the ownership of the gold. Initially, vide Order dated 13.05.2005 Shri Narayan Sharma was held to be the owner of the gold seized. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application was filed by Shri Badri Narayan Sharma who filed an appeal before this Tribunal in the year 2005 against the order of Commissioner Appeals dated 31.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in which manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. From this notification it is apparent that gold in all forms, including bullions, ingot, coin, ornament, crude jewellery is one of the specified goods therein. 9. Further it is observed that the gold was seized on 02.06.1999, the order of confiscation was announced on 23.03.2000. The aforesaid provision permits the disposal of seized goods. In the present case pursuant to the said seizure the original adjudicating authority had confirmed the confiscation where after only the department proceeded for disposal of goods, it being one of the specified goods, in terms of the notification as passed under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act. 10. I further observe that Section 1B of 110 of Customs Act provides a procedure to be undertaken by the proper officers for disposal of the goods. It is apparent from record that the said procedure was also duly followed by the department as the inventory of the seized goods was got prepared on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the time of the disposal of the seized goods. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the disposal of the seized goods was absolutely in accordance of the statutory provisions. The order of return of seized gold has been announced 14 years later than the said disposal. What can be returned while complying with the directions of return of seized gold is the sale proceeds of the said gold received at the time of disposal thereof. Also it is apparent that present appellant was held owner of the seized |& confiscated gold vide order of this Tribunal dated 13.05.2005. Time taken till the order of Tribunal dated 24.07.2015 directing the return of the impugned gold is on account of mistaken identity of Shri Badri Narayan the appellant himself. The order of confiscation was otherwise served on Shyam Lal Pal as well as Shri Badri Narayan who was held owner of the impugned gold vide order of the year 2005. The said Badri Narayan impersonated the actual Badri Narayan whose appeal was decided in his favour in the year 2015 does not reflect any mistake or even delay on part of Department. It is already held that they followed due procedure for disposal of said gold in the year 2001. 13. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
