Case Law Details
Md. Altaf Vs Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) (CESTAT Kolkata)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Kolkata has dismissed an appeal by Md. Altaf and others, upholding the confiscation of over 8 kilograms of smuggled gold and penalties imposed on them. The case originated from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) tip-off on August 27, 2019, which led to the interception of a car at a toll plaza near Vidyasagar Setu. After initial denials, the occupants admitted to carrying smuggled gold concealed in a specially built cavity behind the car’s rear armrest.
Authorities recovered eight gold bars and a smaller cut piece, collectively weighing more than 8 kilograms and valued at over ₹3.19 crore. The individuals were unable to produce any legal documents for the gold’s acquisition, transportation, or possession. As no one claimed ownership, the adjudicating authority ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold and imposed penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
In their appeal, the defendants claimed they were unaware of the gold’s presence and argued they were innocent. However, the tribunal found this argument unconvincing. It stated that the burden of proof lay with the appellants to demonstrate that they possessed the gold through legal means, which they failed to do. The court’s decision reinforces the legal principle that possession of a contraband item without valid documentation is sufficient grounds for confiscation and penalty. The CESTAT concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the lower authority’s order and dismissed the appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty on them under section 112(b) of the Customs Act,
1962.
2. The facts of the case are that on being specific information received by the DRI on 27.08.2019 at about 17.20 hrs., the vehicle No.WB 20AZ7971 white coloured Hyundai Verna was coming from Kolkata side to approach the Toll Plaza, Vidyasagar Setu, 2nd Hooghly Bridge was intercepted and the appellants were travelling in the said car who were asked whether they were carrying any contraband items on their person or possession or concealed in the vehicle. Initially all of them denied, but on repeated questioning, they admitted they were carrying smuggled gold bars which are concealed in a specially built cavity made behind the arm rest in the rear seat of the vehicle.
3. On being asked, the appellants could not produce any documents in respect of licit possession, acquisition, transportation or dealing with the gold in question. Thereafter, the investigations started and 8 pieces of rectangular shaped yellow coloured metallic bars and one small yellow coloured metallic cut piece of 24 carat gold of foreign origin, totally weighing 8000.19 gram, valued at Rs.3,19,20,758/- were recovered. The said items were sent for C.R.C.L. and as per the test report the gold contained purity of 99.8% and 99.6%. Therefore, on reasonable belief that the gold was of foreign origin and smuggled one, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for absolute confiscation thereof and to impose penalties on the appellants. Nobody
claimed the ownership of the gold in question, therefore, the adjudicating authority absolutely confiscated the gold in question and imposed various penalties on the appellants under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants are before us against the imposition of penalty thereon. Against the said order, the appellants are in appeal and contesting the imposition of penalties on them.
2. The Ld.Counsel for the Appellants submits that the appellants under bona fide belief had taken the vehicle for traveling and they were not aware that any gold has been put in the vehicle, therefore, as the appellants are innocent and not claiming the gold, the penalties on the appellants are not imposable.
3. Heard the parties, perused the record.
4. We find that during the investigation the appellants were found carrying the impugned gold in question in the vehicle they were
travelling and which was concealed in a specially built cavity made behind the arm rest in the rear seat of the vehicle. Admittedly the
appellants were not carrying any licit documents for procurement of the gold. In that circumstances, the onus lies on the appellants to prove that the gold in question has been possessed by them through licit means which the appellants failed to do so. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the gold in question and imposed penalties on the appellants under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, there is no requirement to interfere with the impugned order, the same is upheld.
5. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court.)
Author Bio
