Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 320 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - Gold - Disposal of seized gold on the part of Revenue - it is submitted that department had not followed any procedure for the disposal of the gold and the said fact has been admitted by the department vide their letter dated 16.03.2018 - notice is not served to the owner or to the person from whom such goods were recovered - benefit of N/N. 31/1986- Customs dated 05.02.1986 - HELD THAT:- From N/N. 31/1986- Customs dated 05.02.1986, it is apparent that gold in all forms, including bullions, ingot, coin, ornament, crude jewellery is one of the specified goods therein - Further it is observed that the gold was seized on 02.06.1999, the order of confiscation was announced on 23.03.2000. The provision of section 110 of CA permits the disposal of seized goods. In the present case pursuant to the said seizure the original adjudicating authority had confirmed the confiscation where after only the department proceeded for disposal of goods, it being one of the specified goods, in terms of the notification as passed under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act. Section 1B of 110 of Customs Act provides a procedure to be undertaken by the proper officers for disposal of the goods. It is apparent from record that the said procedure was also duly followed by the department as the inventory of the seized goods was got prepared on 02.06.1999 on the date of seizure itself. The same was also got verified by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-Cum-Judicial-Magistrate, Bikaner that too twice i.e. on 03.06.1999 and also on 16.05.2000. Thereafter the impugned goods were deposited in the Malkhana of New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi on 13.07.2000 from where the gold was handed over to State Bank of India (SBI) on 20.03.2001 for disposal which was ultimately sold by SBI on 26.03.2001 for an amount of ₹ 4,84,545/- - This particular perusal is clear enough to show that the disposal of goods was very much in compliance of the statutory procedure. Otherwise also there is always a presumption of correctness in the act of discharge of duty by a competent officer. There is no evidence produced by the Appellant to rebutt the said presumption. In the light of the fact that gold is a commodity the value where of has been increased enormously since the date of impugned disposal in the year 2001 till the date of the order of return in the year 2015 and that there is no apparent fault on part of the department while disposing the same. The department rather has duly complied with the order of return of confiscated goods of the year 2015 by refunding the sale proceeds of the gold as was received in the year 2001. The said amount has duly been encashed by the Appellant that to more than a year prior filing of the impugned appeal. The question is answered with the finding that in the given facts & circumstance, the order of this Tribunal stands duly complied with when department returned the sale proceeds of impugned gold as were received in the year 2001 when this gold was auction sold. Thus the appellant is not held entitled for the gold as such nor for its market value as prevalent in the year 2015 - appeal dismissed.
|