9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Adjudicating authority - no specific evidence has been brought to the contrary by the Appellant in their grounds of Appeal - appeal dismissed. - HON BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) NONE for the Appellant Shri Tariq Suleman , Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER Per : R. MURALIDHAR : None has appeared on behalf of the Appellant. On going through the case records, it is found that they have been granted hearings on the following dates:- 03.11.2023 30.11.2023 04.01.2024 21.04.2024 03.04.2024 14.05.2024 and today i.e. 10.06.2024. Since the matter pertains to 2017, we have taken up the Appeals themselves with the help of the Ld.AR for the Department. 2. We find that the issue pertains to seizure and confiscation of gold bars weighing 2405 gms. valued at Rs.73,11,200/-. It is seen from the Show Cause Notice that the officials of DRI have searched two persons while they were boarding Delhi bound Brahmaputra Mail on 20.06.2016. The DRI maintained a vigil at Kamakhya Railway Station and two persons were intercepted by the DRI officials. Trolley bags carried by them were searched and it was found that cavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The DRI officers therefore, seized the recovered yellow metal bars believed to be gold bars alleging that the said goods have been illegally brought into India from Myanmar in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act and other statutory orders in force including the two trolley bags used to carry/conceal the recovered gold bars and other recovered goods as detailed in the inventory of the goods. 29. Going by the case records, I find in the present case, A. Mohammad Dhariq, one of the person from whose possession the gold bars in question were recovered, while giving his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 20-06-2016, subscribed that he and T.Jaffar Sathik, his accomplice had reached Guwahati on 19-06- 2016 by Egmore Dibrugarh Express carrying their belongings on one air bag each and that, they met their contact persons at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati who had handed over them the said gold bars which were kept concealed in the two trolley bags and that, they took over the trolley bags and transferred their belongings from their respective air bags to the said trolley bags and further that, their contact persons took away their empty air bags. He also stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gold were concealed in the trolley bags and further that, they transferred their belongings into the trolley bags from their bags which they brought from Chennai and that those empty bags were taken over by the said two persons. He stated that he did not know anything about the source of gold, but he was told that the gold came from Myanmar through Manipur border and also that he carried gold twice earlier and was paid Rs.20,000/- by A Mohammed Dhariq other than the journey expenses. He further stated that his job as a carrier was up to Egmore, Chennai and that, thereafter, A Mohammed Dhariq himself would have carried the said two trolley bags containing the recovered gold and that, he did not know where these gold bars were to be delivered and also to whom. I also find that it was the submission of T. Jaffar Sathik in his subsequent statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 1962 on 29-6-2016 that he had nothing to add to his submission given on 20-6-2016. Thus, I find from the facts and circumstances of the present case that A. Mohammad Dhariq and T Jaffar Sathik had given a vivid description as to how the recovered gold were brought from Myanmar to Guwahati, India th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Myanmar to India through Moreh without any document and how the markings available on the recovered gold were removed and also how the shape of the said gold were reshaped in order to conceal the same inside the hollow space of the pulling rod of the said trolley bags at Moreh. I therefore, find the statements of the said two persons which were corroborated by one another, not only give the details of the activities undertaken by them but also how the recovered gold were smuggled from Myanmar to India through Moreh and why there was no marking available on the seized gold. Further. I find that the said two persons in their respective statements had not only given the details of the activities undertaken while the recovered gold were being carried by them in the present case but also admitted that they carried gold which were brought from Myanmar to India on two earlier occasions following the same modus operandi and thus it is evident that they were regularly carrying smuggled gold and also a part of a syndicate which was actively involved in smuggling of gold from Myanmar to India. Available records also indicate that the said two persons had never retracted from their respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs Act, 1962 not only in the instant case but also they admittedly, involved themselves in smuggling of gold in the past which made it evident that they are habitual offenders and therefore, it is my considered view that this case is fit for launching prosecution against the said two persons under Section 135 of the Customs Act. 1962. 31. Based on the discussion and findings aforesaid, I pass the following orders ORDER 32. I order absolute confiscation of four pieces of gold bars, weighing 2405 grams and valued at Rs 73,11,200/- (rupees seventy three lakh eleven thousand two hundred only) seized vide case No 01/CL/IMP/Gold/DRI/GAU/2016-17 dated 20-06-2016 under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 33. I order absolute confiscation of trolley bags seized vide case No. 01/CL/IMP/Gold/DRI/GAU/2016-17 dated 20-06-2016 under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. 34. I impose a penalty of Rs. 300000/- (rupees three lakhs only) on A. Mohammad Dhariq under Section 112(b) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 35. I impose a penalty of Rs. 200000/- (rupees two lakhs only) on T Jaffar Sathik under Section 112(b) (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (Dictated and pronounced in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
