TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the belief that it was smuggled. A statement was recorded from the appellant wherein the appellant stated that the primary gold in question was received from gold dealers of Jaipur. The appellant was also arrested and remanded. 2. After further investigation, show-cause notice dated 12-10-95 was issued alleging that the primary gold in question was liable to confiscation and the appellant was liable to penalty for carrying, transporting and dealing in smuggled gold. Penalty was also proposed on the gold dealers of Jaipur named by the appellant. 3. The appellant contested the charge. It was submitted that he had retracted his statement on 25-4-95 and that the correct factual position was that he was an employee of M/s. Ramesh Chand Dhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding that there was no corroboration of the statement of the appellant that the primary gold in question was procured from the said Jaipur dealers. Thus, the finding that the smuggled gold was supplied to the appellant by these dealers was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). All the same, the confiscation of the goods and penalty upon the appellant were confirmed. The present appeal challenges that finding. 6. I have perused the record and have heard both sides at length. 7. The gold has been confiscated on the ground that the same is smuggled. The main evidence for the finding regarding smuggling is that gold pieces had foreign marking; claims about purchase have been found to be false and that the appellant had stated that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is a normal practice in gold trade. The statement of the appellant about receiving the seized gold pieces from Jaipur dealers remains discarded by the Commissioner. Thus, there is no specific evidence or finding about the smuggled nature of the gold. The appellant had also produced an affidavit from Narayan Jewellers confirming the sale of 10 bars of gold to the appellant. 9. The finding against the appellant is that the appellant was guilty of acquiring/possessing/purchasing and carrying smuggled gold. As already noted, smuggled nature of the gold in question has not been established. In the absence of that, the appellant s possession of the gold in question is not a case of acquiring/possessing smuggled gold. 10. In the result, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|