Narru Guru Shantha Siva Kamal Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of any cogent and corroborative evidence, gold in question cannot be construed to be of foreign origin or smuggled in nature. Accordingly, god seized is not liable for confiscation under section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act. 1962. Accordingly, order is set aside.
Facts- The present appeal has been filed by Narru Guru Shantha Siva Kamal of Vijayawada (appellant) against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of 2,333.02 grams of gold valued Rs.1,21, 66, 699/- seized from the Appellant. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the penalty of Rs. One Lakh imposed on the Appellant. Aggrieved against the confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalty on him, the Appellant has filed this appeal.
Conclusion- In the absence of any cogent evidence establishing the smuggled character of the gold, the appellant cannot be held liable for abetting any offence under the Customs act, 1962. In these circumstances, we find that the ingredients enshrined in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the present case for imposition of penalties on the appellants. Accordingly, we hold that the penalties imposed on the appellants are not sustainable.
