Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Vihari Jewels Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No: 86888 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/11/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Vihari Jewels Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)

CESTAT Mumbai held that without evincing illicit trafficking of the impugned goods and presuming the same as smuggled goods deprives legal sanctity.

Facts- A young lady, of no inconsequential stature, is intercepted with ‘diamond studded jewellery’ and a ‘Hublot’, wristwatch, totally valued at Rs. 2,45,00,000 at the ‘green channel’ of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), Mumbai after arrival from Singapore and confesses that she is the ‘carrier’ in a family ring for smuggling of the valuable articles; apparently, her father and mother run established jewellery outlets in Singapore while she, with her uncle, handles the Indian end. True to script, she also carries the inevitable diary and mobile phone for deciphering by sleuths intent on destruction of economic saboteurs.

A follow up raid at the establishments run by her uncle, uncovers 41 nos. of precious stones and jewellery valued at Rupees two crores that, for the present, were unaccounted in the stock of M/s Vihari Jewels, the appellant. The uncle also manufactures and trades in loose diamonds and jewellery under the name and style of Rajesh Brothers and Tisya Jewels.

Conclusion- Licit possession in the course of domestic transaction having been satisfactorily furnished, without being controverted by the lower authorities, on the part of owners of the impugned goods, the arbitrary arrogation of empowerment to subject the sellers to the presumption of having been in possession of ‘smuggled goods’ sans authority of law to do so deprives the finding of liability to penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 of legal sanctity. Without evincing illicit trafficking, in the form in which it was recovered from customers, from outside the country, even by the stretched framework of preponderance of probability, there is no onus on the appellants to establish that the conjectures entertained by customs authorities are incorrect.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031