Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2329 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods and vehicle under Section 111 (b) and (d)- Gold Bars - Appellant contends that seized goods are not having any foreign markings and have purity of less than 99.99% - Gold bars were not of smuggled nature thus case is not covered under Section 123 and once bills are produced by appellant such gold and vehicle are not liable to confiscation - Revenue contends that no document showing licit acquisition of gold bars was produced by appellant at the time of interception and seizure and bills were created after thought - Quantity and purity of seized goods cannot be produced from jewellery thus order passed is correct. Held That:- Contention of Revenue that report of chemical examine will prevail over oral statements made but chemical examiner can only give percentage of gold in gold bars but cannot say whether seized goods are of foreign origin and purity of gold has been certified to be 99.92% to 99.96% - Seized goods cannot be considered to be of foreign origin. seized gold bars do not have uniform weight/purity and appellant has shown purchase bills covering gold bars having assorted size, weight and purity and person who sold seized goods has also confirmed to have supplied them to appellant - Minor mismatching of difference in weight will not make bills as an after thought - Appeal allowed - Decided in favour of Appellant.
|