9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances burden to prove otherwise on appellant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs Shri Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal and Another [1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT] in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 'The circumstances have to be viewed from the experienced eye of the officer who is well equipped to interpret the suspicious circumstances and to from a reasonable belief in the light of the said circumstances.' Seized gold of 2 FG biscuits with foreign marking as VALCAMBI SUSSIE with serial no. AJ855365 & AJ855366. In this regard, appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence which relates to seized gold biscuit. Appellant has stated in his statement dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is not smuggled.
Conclusion - The appellant failed to prove that the seized gold is not smuggled. Impugned order based on facts and law and proper appreciation of evidence. No any interference required in the impugned order. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led gold was on them in view of provisions of Section 123 of Customs Act 1962 which they have failed to discharge. He further reiterated that power to allow redemption under Section 125 is a discretionary power, which is exercised by the Adjudicating Authority based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the present case it has been rightfully denied to the appellant. Further, the penalty has also seen correctly imposed. He relies on the following judgement to support his argument: i) State of Gujarat Vs Shri Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal and Another [1987 (3) TMI 111 (SC)] ii) Commissioner of Customs, Kerala Vs Om Prakash Khatri [2019 (3) TMI 457 - Kerala High Court] 4. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. V. Azmathullah, for the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be- (a) in a case where such seizure is made from the possession of any person,- (i) on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; and (ii) if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person; (b) in any other case, on the person, if any, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized.] (2) This section shall apply to gold and manufactures thereof, watches, and any other class of goods which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify. Therefore, only reasonable belief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. AJ855365 & AJ855366. In this regard, appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence which relates to seized gold biscuit. Appellant has stated in his statement dated 22.06.2022 that he was given Rs. 10,50,000/- by Shri P. Radha Krishna for purchase of 2 gold biscuits from Shri Ashok Kumar, Chennai. However, this part of his statement was denied by Shri P. Radha Krishna and also stated that he did not know anyone by name Shri Ashok Kumar from Chennai and also denied to given money of Rs. 10,50,000/- requested appellant to get gold biscuits. Shri Ashok Kumar from Chennai did not turn up to respond Summons. Therefore, appellant failed to prove that the seized gold biscuit is not illicit. Seized gold biscuit having foreign marking, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... town seizure, it has wrongly been confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and penalties have wrongly been imposed under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act. But in the light of the above discussion that the admissions by the appellant is sufficient for prima facie belief that the gold recovered from them was of foreign origin, the burden was now upon the appellant to prove it otherwise. 14. The burden under the Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 which is only of a reasonable belief is effectively discharged by the Department who initiated the action on the basis of the seizure and the recorded statements of the concerned person. Then the onus to prove that the gold was not smuggled, so as to reasonable belief entertained by the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
