Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2015 (9) TMI 1314 - AT - CustomsOwnership of Seized goods Legitimate transaction appellant argued that seized goods were properly accounted for in the registers and Appellant has discharged the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 - Appellant alongwith on other was intercepted and 115 foreign marked Gold biscuits were recovered from eight packets carried by the said two persons Whether seized goods were purchased and/or owned by appellant. Held that -It was observed from case records that Appellant claimed ownership of seized goods Retraction made by Appellant was not acceptable Supreme Court s judgment in case of Vinod Solanki Vs UOI 2008 (12) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT specifically ruled that evidence brought out by confession if retracted must be corroborated by other independent and cogent evidences In view of circumstances there was corroboration and justification for retraction on part of Appellant Employee of Appellant confirmed to have prepared paper found alongwith seized packet All others who were investigated denied ownership of seized gold bars Thus Appellant was rightful owner/claimant of seized goods. Adjudicating authority held that no payments were made by Appellant for seized gold bars Appellant brought on record letter under which order was placed for 3000 gold bars before branch manager of Allahabad bank As per cross-examination Bank has sold gold bars to M/s Amrapali Industries Ltd Source of seized gold biscuits were traced out to genuine purchase from authorised Bank Under existing matrix it cannot be said that Appellant failed to explain licit acquisition of seized gold bars when he was regularly buying such gold bars in past Appeal allowed Decided in favour of appellant.
|