Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1231 - AT - CustomsImport of gold sovereigns - Appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of licit acquisition/possession and/or importation of the said gold sovereigns, and also reasonably explain the possession of the said currency, the gold sovereigns were seized by the officers on the reasonable belief that these were smuggled and liable to confiscation under Customs Act, 1962 and also for contravention of the provisions of Gold Control Act, 1968 - Confiscation u/s 121 - Seizure u/s 119 - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that:- apparently it may appear plausible answer that such sovereign gold coins bearing inscriptions of period prior to independence might have been possessed by his family members prior to independence, but when the officers, on a specific information initiated investigation and questioned about its licit possession on its seizure from the possession of the appellant in a bullion market, not from his house or any of his or family members bank lockers. Burden is heavier on the Appellant to establish the licit possession of the said gold coins through cogent and reliable evidences. However, on analysis of the evidences on record, I find that the approach of the appellant is ambivalent and incoherent. Initially when the goldcoins were recovered from his possession, while he was in a bullion shop, his instant reaction was that the gold coins had been procured by him from the open market but failed to disclose the name of the shops/vendors. Similarly, the explanation on the possession of Indian currency as proceeds of sale of silver, were on investigation later found to be false. Thus, the Appellant has miserably failed to discharge the burden and also in establishing the second line of defense that it belonged to their family properly which fact has been found to be untrue from a categorical statement dated 12.6.1987of his elder brother, which the Appellant never disputed not the same has been retracted at any point of time. Mere declaring the value of the gold coins and reflecting the same in their Income Tax Returns would not ipso facto establish that these gold coins were acquired/possessed licitly by him. Also, ongoing through the said Income Tax Returns, I find that the same were filed after the date of seizure of the gold coins, hence, could not be of much assistance to the claim of the Appellant that these were their family property. Besides, I agree with the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue that exoneration from the charges under the Gold Control Act, would not automatically be applicable to the proceedings initiated under the Customs Act,1962 as the object and purpose of these Acts are different - Following decision of ANNAPURNA YARN FABRICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PORT), KOLKATA [2002 (5) TMI 178 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] - Decided against assessee.
|