Naresh Kumar Agarwalla Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata)
The CESTAT Kolkata considered appeals against an adjudication order directing absolute confiscation of seized gold biscuits, gold ornaments and a 1 kg gold bar, confiscation of ₹1,88,00,800 seized as alleged sale proceeds of smuggled gold, and penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case arose after DRI officers intercepted Shri Atu Dutta on 27.12.2013 at Howrah Railway Station based on specific intelligence and recovered 26 gold biscuits concealed on his person, gold ornaments weighing 3072 grams and a 1 kg gold bar bearing foreign markings. The Tribunal held that the DRI had “reason to believe” the goods were smuggled, as the interception was based on specific intelligence and the Panchnama recorded the basis for seizure. Accordingly, the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act shifted to the claimants.
Examining each category separately, the Tribunal found that the appellants produced invoices, hallmarking records and RTGS payment evidence establishing licit procurement of the 3072 grams of gold ornaments. As the Department produced no corroborative evidence that the ornaments were made from smuggled gold, confiscation of the ornaments was set aside. Similarly, the 1 kg gold bar bearing the “Valcambi Suisse” marking was supported by purchase documents, including Invoice No. JJ/2056/2013-14 dated 24.12.2013 issued by M/s Jalan Jewellers, and the Tribunal held that the appellants had discharged the burden under Section 123. Consequently, confiscation of the gold bar was also set aside.
