9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been controverted by the investigation. Thus, it is found that the claimants have duly discharged the burden of proof in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. On the other hand, the Department has not adduced any evidence documentary or otherwise that the gold is illegally imported. Considering the fact that gold is freely imported in the country and it is abundantly available in the market, it cannot be held that some gold found inside the Indian territory is smuggled in nature. There may be doubt and suspicion inviting investigation but cannot be sufficient for the purpose of penal action. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/75667-75670/2017 - Final Order Nos. 77019-77022/KOL/2019 - Dated:- 9-8-2019 - Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Officer stated that the gold found in his possession was given to him by his owner Shri Bhanudas Mane for melting. Shri Bhanudas Mane in his statement claimed the ownership of gold recovered from Shri Brahmadeo Mane, out of that 100 grams of gold of 99.5% purity had been purchased from M/s. Tarun Ghosh, a Bullion Trader and 940 grams of gold ornament was belonging to his wife. He had sent the said gold for melting and conversion to 92.5% purity, since his own melting machine was out of order at the material time. 3. Shri Ajit Bhosle claiming the gold recovered during the search of his melting house submitted that it consisted of ornaments belonging to his wife and his brother and was used as stock-in-trade. The investigation examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l transaction of gold by submitting non-relevant documents. Further, observing that the claimant of the seized gold failed to discharge the burden of proof as cast upon them under Section 123 of the Customs Act, confiscation of the seized gold valued at ₹ 59,81,000/- was ordered under Section 111(b) 111(d) of the Customs Act and penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) each was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on all the four appellants. 6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the impugned order and submitted that the department has miserably failed to establish that the seized gold are of foreign origin and smuggled in nature. The seizure was made under the Customs Act without th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
