9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that circumstances, Revenue has failed to prove reasonable belief that being the gold in question is smuggled one. In the absence of that the impugned gold cannot be seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the gold in question is not liable for confiscation and no penalty is imposable on the appellant.' Admittedly the facts of the case are similar to the case of and Bajrang Ingole. Conclusion - As it is a case of town seizure having no foreign marking on the gold and gold is of different shape, size and weight and purity of 99.30% to 99.39%, in that circumstances, the gold in question cannot be absolutely confiscated. Therefore, the conditions of Section 110 for seizure of gold are not complied with as there is no reasonable believe that the gold in question is of foreign origin. The impugned gold is not liable for confiscation and is to be released to the appellant and no penalty is imposable on the appellant - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Amit Kumar , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Faiz Ahmed , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Order : [ Per Shri Ashok Jindal ] The appellant is in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sundari express and on 24.10.2020 he was sitting in his berth in Guwahati railway station, the GRPS came inside and started checking his luggage and body and during search, the gold wrapped with handkerchief inside the pocket of his pant which he was wearing recovered the gold with 11 pieces having 699.310 Gms and the gold has been seized by the RPF and thereafter it was handed over to Custom officials for further proceedings. 6. It is his submissions that in this case, no seizure was done by the Custom officials and seizure has been done by the GRPS therefore, the proceedings under Custom officials are not sustainable against the appellant. It is his further submission there is no marking on the gold bar/pieces indicating foreign origin further, it is evident from the report of the valuer that the bar are of being irregular shape and size being weigh i.e 60.440 Gms, 71.370 gms, 67.200 gms, 69.610 gms, 97.300 gms, 4.100 gms, 70.500 gms, 81.720 gms, 88.990 gms, 72.030 gms, 16.050 gms. As shape and weight of the bars itself does not indicate that the gold is of foreign origin and it is known in the trade circle that the gold of foreign origin is of standard weight and shape of 100 gm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure. 54. The other question which was argued before me was that the customs officer did not act on any reasonable belief when he searched the petitioner's premises on 15-12-1967 and seized the goods. Section 110 opens with the words if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods . What is the meaning of reasonable belief ? Did the officer entertain reasonable belief in the facts and the circumstances of this case? This is the other question to be decided. The Supreme Court has said that reasonable belief is a pre-requisite condition of the power of seizure that the statute confers on the officer. (See Collector of Customs v. Sampathu Chetty, AIR 1962 S.C. 316). The preliminary requirement of Section 110 is that the officer seizing should entertain a reasonable belief that the goods seized were smuggled. 55. Reasonable belief as required by Section 110 refers to the point of time when the goods in question are seized and not to a stage subsequent to the act of seizure. (M.G. Abrol v. Amichand, AIR 1961 Bom. 227). The condition precedent that there was such a reasonable belief anterior to the seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods. There was nothing to suggest the illegal importation of the goods into the country 60. The goods must be smuggled goods. The word 'smuggled' means that the goods were of foreign origin and they had beeled gooded from abroad. Only then does the presumption unded section 123 arise. The goods themselves did not suggest that the petitioner was an old smuggler or a dealer in smuggled goods if there was such information with the customs, they ought to have disclosed it Inted goods if theres did not suggest any illicit importation. Nor was there any inscription on the goods which could be the basis of the reasonable belief that the goods were of foreign origin. There was nothing in the appearance of the goods to suggest that they had been newly manufactured and brought into this country very recently from another country. In a word there was nothing absolutely from which inferences about their origin or recent import could arise. It was not a case where large quantity of gold with foreign markings was found hidden in the trousers of the accused as happened in Hukma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 S.C. 476. 61. In fact there is a finding by the Board in favour of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue has failed to prove reasonable belief that being the gold in question is smuggled one. In the absence of that the impugned gold cannot be seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the gold in question is not liable for confiscation and no penalty is imposable on the appellant. In view of this I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 11. Further in the case of R.K.Swami Singh (Supra) this Tribunal has examined the said issue and observed as under: 12.1 We observe that the gold was seized from the appellant while he was travelling in a van in Imphal. The gold seized was not having any foreign marking on it. Upon testing the samples, the gold was found to be having purity of 995.2 mille, 995.1 mille and 995.0 mille. Thus, we observe that the gold is not Standard foreign origin gold, which is normally having a purity of 999.9mille. 12.2 We observe that the gold pieces/bars were seized from the appellant on the 'reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
