Mere possession of Foreign marking gold cannot be treated as smuggled without corroborative evidence

Rajesh Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) (CESTAT Delhi)

CESTAT Delhi held that mere possession of foreign marking on gold without any corroborative evidence doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it is smuggled gold.

Facts- During search 20.643 kgs. of gold of foreign origin, having total market value of Rs. 6,46,57,189/- was recovered. On enquiry Sh. Rajesh Kumar could not produce any document for legal possession of the gold and informed that the said gold was received from Sh. Amit Goel, Director of M/s Pace Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd., through his employee Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh. During search in another shop, currency of total face value of Rs.6,44,00,000/- was found. The appellant informed that this was sale proceeds of smuggled gold sold on that day and also sold during previous week.

On a reasonable belief that the recovered gold was smuggled into India and that the said cash amount was sale proceeds of smuggled gold, the same appeared to be liable for confiscation u/s. 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Officers of DRI seized the same under the provisions of section 110 of the Act vide panchnama.

Pursuant to investigation, show cause notice dated 12.04.2017 was issued to the appellant alongwith Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh and Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh, calling upon them to show cause individually as to why the seized gold weighing 20.643 kg. (of gold bars) having market value of Rs. 6,46,57,189/- seized from the shop premises of this appellant be not confiscated under the provisions of Sections 111(d), 111(o) and 111(p) of the Act with further proposal to confiscated the seized Indian currency of Rs. 6,43,74,000/-being sale proceed of the gold u/s. 121 of the Customs Act with proposal to impose penalty individually on all the noticees u/s. 112 of the Customs Act.

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