Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1125 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - recovery of 12 gold bars of foreign origin - onus on the appellant to establish legitimacy of the seized gold - HELD THAT:- Once the appellant has submitted evidence towards licit procurement of gold from local sources, paid through banking channels, evidence thereto duly recorded in the books of account, it was incumbent on the department to have verified the same. Furthermore, it is categorically placed on record by the appellant that the said documents were anterior to the date of search and seizure and their veracity can also not be doubted as most of them were taken over by the DRI officers and were in their custody at the time of seizure or have been tendered to the department duly authenticated by the banks issuing the same. The authentication by the bank, the document being anterior to the date of seizure, and the documents most of which were taken possession of at the time of seizure by the authorities, therefore clearly discharge the onus on the appellant to establish legitimacy of the seized gold, cast upon the appellants and we find the same to have been satisfactorily complied with. The onus therefore, is now on the department to sustain the legality or denounce the evidence tendered for justifiable reasons in law. It therefore appears that the department has proceeded solely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and did not possess a shred of evidence to bring home the charges levelled. It is settled law that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In the instant case there are no evidence to nail the appellants. On the contrary the department has not cared to investigate the evidence tendered by the accused or have remained deliberately silent about its outcome. The department has failed to carry out proper investigations into the case and not having examined the evidence of alleged licit acquisition of gold by Narendra Kumar Jain, tendered to them/recovered by them during search and seizure operations does not lead their case any further. Under the circumstances confiscation of the seized 89.820 gms of gold is not merited. In view of the said finding no penalties are also imposable on the appellants. We therefore while upholding confiscation of 6000 gms of gold set aside the remaining part the order under challenge, lift the confiscation of 89.820 gms gold and imposition of penalty on the appellant- Narendra Kumar Jain. As for imposition of penalty on Ramjanam Ray we note that the show cause notice and the adjudication order do not bring about any specific charge against him, other than mere here say evidence and that denial of cross-examination to him have definitely impacted the opportunities of natural justice being offered to the appellant. The fact that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted at the premises of Shankar Jewellery where in Ramjanam Ray was said to be employed (as per the version of the carriers) therefore fails to establish his role, if any into the matter. Appeal disposed off.
|