Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 43 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - foreign origin Gold - burden to prove purchase has been discharged by the Appellant under section 123 of Customs Act - seized goods are liable to confiscation or not - difference of opinion - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice has proceeded on an erroneous notion that the burden of proof is required to be jointly discharged by Appellant No. 1 to 4 along with Appellant No. 5. In fact the only person who would be required to discharge the burden of proof would be Appellant No. 5. Framing of charges on Appellant No. 1 to 4 on this count is erroneous. The ownership claimant Rinku Verma [Appellant No. 5] has produced 4 Invoices towards purchase from Snehal Gems Pvt Ltd. The transaction details by way of ledger and bank have been produced by him. Taking this lead, the Revenue has caused investigation at the end of Snehal Gems, who have confirmed the transactions in respect of 4 Invoices and also produced their purchase invoices and many other records which are part of the relied upon documents in the Show Cause Notice. No proper conclusion has been arrived at by Revenue to disprove the claims of Rinku Verma and Snehal Gems Pvt Ltd. The issues raised in the reply to Show Cause Notice have not been properly addressed. The Revenue had an original lead about the procurement of the gold in question by way of cash transaction between Shashi Kant Patil and Rinku Verma. Even as it was important for the Revenue to prove the gold in question was not procured from Snehal, in view of clear lead, the Revenue was also required to prove that the gold in question was procured way of cash transactions from Shashi Kant Patil. This lead has been completely abandoned without any proper reason. This is a serious lapse on the part of the Revenue - In this case, since there were contrary claims, the onus was on the Revenue was on two folds. Firstly, to disprove the claim of Rinku Verma that the gold was procured through proper Invoices, secondly to prove that the gold was in fact procured on cash basis from Shashi Kant Patil. As per my detailed observations, on both these counts, the Revenue has failed. The onus under Section 123 stands discharged by Appellant No. 5 [claimant of ownership] since Revenue has not come out with any specific adverse evidence against these Invoices and transactions. Also Appellants 1 to 4 were in no way required to discharge this burden in terms of Section 123. The Hon’ble Member Judicial is agreed upon that burden of proof stands discharged under Section 123 and hold that seized goods are not liable for confiscation - The reference is answered and the difference of opinion stands resolved.
|