Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 310 - AT - CustomsAbsolute Confiscation - Gold Bars - Baggage Rules - allegation that appellant has kept on changing his stand and that too, without any supporting evidence - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant tried to smuggle the gold, ie., he tried to bring the above gold bars from Singapore into India without payment of applicable duties and without even declaring the same when he was duty bound to do so. The purchase of the same and the final destination/usage may not be of any significance when such an act of smuggling is carried out, since what is important is primarily the declaration, followed by the payment of applicable duties/taxes. Further, the appellant has also pleaded that he was a law abiding citizen but when the law mandates a minimum declaration which has not been complied with here in the case on hand, the above plea of the appellant would also not going to help the appellant. Moreover, the serious dispute as to the dates on invoices with consecutive numbers is alone an incriminating factor not at all explained by the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Rejection of first appeal upholding absolute confiscation of gold bars. Analysis: The appellant challenged the rejection of his first appeal, where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of six gold bars. The appellant's representative argued that the appellant, as the sole breadwinner, had purchased the gold bars using his savings and provided supporting bills. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that discrepancies in the invoices indicated suspicious transactions. The Revenue also highlighted the appellant's changing statements regarding the purpose of carrying the gold bars, raising doubts about the appellant's credibility. The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and examined the documents presented. It was established that the appellant attempted to smuggle the gold bars into India without paying duties or declaring them. The Tribunal emphasized that the act of smuggling was the primary concern, irrespective of the intended use of the gold. While the appellant claimed ignorance and cooperation, these factors were deemed insufficient to absolve him of the smuggling attempt. The appellant's assertion of being a law-abiding citizen was dismissed since he failed to comply with the mandatory declaration requirements. The discrepancies in the invoice dates, with consecutive numbers, further incriminated the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it for lacking substance. The decision was based on the appellant's attempt to evade duties by smuggling the gold bars, disregarding legal obligations. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 08.09.2020 by the Judicial Member.
|