Jyoti Jewellers Vs C.C.-Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that confiscation of gold set aside due to non-recording of any statement of the relevant person coupled with finding of department being based on assumption and presumption.
Facts- On information, an Angadia firm was intercepted on 16.11.2013 and 2 pieces of 1Kg each of gold were found in his possession. While one was released after detention and belonged to another party. The second one belonging to M/s. Jyoti Jewellers (the present appellant) and which was moved for job work to M/s. M.H. Karbawala & Co, Mumbai under challan from M/s. Jyoti Jewellers was detained earlier and later seized on 06.05.2014. The lower authorities upheld confiscation, however, allowed release of the same on redemption find of Rs. 2,00,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on present appellant i.e. M/s. Jyoti Jewellers and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri. Hiteshbhai Dwarkadas Patel, partner of M/s. Arvind Kantilal & Co., u/s. 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as he was carrying the above gold for the Angadia firm M/s. Arvind Kantilal & Co.
Conclusion- Held that DHANISHTAH GOLD CC, AHMEDABAD, wherein, it was indicated non recording of statement of the relevant person after production of any proof of legitimate acquisition shifted onus on the department. Further in 2009 (248) ELT 141 (Cal.)-COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV) VS. PUNI DHAPA LOKESWARA RAO, HON’BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that if the preponderance of probability is not in favour of Customs authorities, the department cannot be said to have proved that gold seized was smuggled into India. In the instant case, therefore, the production of Bill of Entry which in higher probability related to the gold biscuits seized, the non recording of any statement of the relevant persons by the department coupled with finding being based on assumption and presumption makes the confiscation bad in law in the facts of this case.
