Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Chail Singh vs Collector Of Customs on 29 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: 2003(161)ELT810(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. 7.532 Kgs of silver bars were seized from appellant Shri Chail Singh on 15-11-86 when he alighted from the train at Barmer railway station. The silver was kept in a cloth tied around his waist. He had a railway ticket from Lilma to Khadin. The recovery was made by railway police officers. Appellant Shri Chail Singh had no document enabling him to have possession of silver bullion. Accordingly, the silver bars were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act under the reasonable belief that the same had been smuggled from Pakistan and was therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The recoveries were handed over to Customs officers on 21-11-86 for further action. Test of the silver bar revealed that it was of 100% purity. Shri Chail Singh in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 stated that silver was handed over to him by appellant Shri Bansi at Jaisindhar for delivery to the latter's brother Shri Jagadisha at Barmer. He also stated that a copy of the bill for the silver was with Shri Jagadisha. The bill dated 6-12-79 was issued by M/s. Kamab Enterprises, Jodhpur for 7.532 Kgs shows it was sold to Shri Sarangmal of Jaisindhar, brother of Shri Banshidher. The statement of Shri Kamal Kishore was also recorded to the same effect. Show cause notice was issued alleging that the silver was smuggled from Pakistan without any authority, that it was transported without voucher as required by Notification Nos. 50 and 51, dated 27-3-80 declaring the inland area of 50 Kms in width from Indo-Pak border under Section 11C of Customs Act, that by transport of such quantity of silver without transport voucher countersigned by proper Customs Officer requirements of Section UK and Public Notice No. 3/80 were flouted. Show cause notices were accordingly issued to 3 appellants who submitted replies. The stand of the appellants was that the silver purchased in 1979 from Shri Kamal Kishore at a time when there was no restriction on dealing with silver, (such restrictions were imposed only in 1986) that Shri Sarangram's daughter was going to be married and the silver was being sent to Shri Jagadisha for making ornaments at Barmer and the silver was not smuggled. The Deputy Collector held that the silver was smuggled. The Deputy Collector was not inclined to accept the bill produced by the appellants. The Deputy Collector also held that there was violation of Notifications 50 and 51 as the silver was caught at Jaisindhar within the limit of 50 Kms specified area without submitting any declaration necessary where value was in excess of stipulated amount prescribed under Public Notice No. 3/80 and there was no record maintained nor transport voucher issued for transportation to non-specified area. Thus, it was held there was contravention of Section 11C, 11H, 11J, 11L and UK of the Act. The silver was ordered to be confiscated along with cloth bag without fixing any redemptions fine and personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-each imposed on appellants Shri Chail Singh and Shri Sarangaram and Rs. 3,000/- on appellant Shri Bansidhar. The appeal preferred before Collector (Appeals) was dismissed. Hence the present appeals were filed.
2. The first contention of the appellant is that the finding of the lower authorities that the silver was smuggled from Pakistan is unsupported by any material. The silver bars had some numerals in them but had no foreign markings. In any event, no such foreign markings are specifically referred to in the show cause notice or in the impugned orders. The only material on which this conclusion was arrived at was 100% purity of the silver and the close proximity of Jaisindhar with Indo-Pak border and the fact that some quantity of silver was recovered from two others when that silver was also being taken for delivery to Shri Jagadisha. These circumstances may throw some suspicion about the origin of the silver but are not sufficient to support the finding that it is of a foreign origin. In these circumstances, the finding that the seized silver was of foreign origin cannot stand.
3. Notification No. 50, dated 27-3-80 was issued under Section 11C of the Customs Act by Central Government having regard to the vulnerability to smuggling and the area mentioned in the schedule thereto which was declared to be specified area. The specified area is the inland area 50 Kms in width from Indo-Pak border in the territories of States of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir etc. The Notification No. 51 of the same date issue under Section 11K(2) of the Act specified silver bullion and coin as goods for the purpose of Section 11K(2)(1) and directed that no such goods of market price exceeding Rs. 1,000/- shall be transported from, into or within any specified area unless the transport voucher has been countersigned by the proper officer. The lower authorities have held that these notifications have been contravened. Learned Counsel for the appellants Shri S.C. Puri contends that Barmer, the place of seizure, is beyond the specified area and therefore there is no contravention. Even assuming that Barmer is beyond 50 Kms from the border it will not help the appellants because it is undisputed that the silver bars allegedly purchased in 1979, were kept by Shri Sarangaram who is residing and working in Jaisindhar and the same was delivered to Shri Chail Singh at Jaisindhar or Lilma which are within the 50 Kms. This is clear from the map which was shown to me by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Undoubtedly the market price of seized silver at the relevant time exceeded Rs. 1,000/-. Such silver could not be transported within the specified area without transport voucher countersigned by the proper officer. Appellants have no case that the movement of these silver bars in this case were supported by any such documents. Therefore, the finding of the lower authorities in this regard is sustainable.
4. In the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the lower authorities should have fixed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Even going by the bill produced by the appellants this quantity of silver was purchased in 1979 for Rs. 17,511/-. The seizure was made on 15-11-86 by which time the price of silver must have certainly gone up. In the circumstances, I fix redemption fine of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousands). I find no reason to interfere with the order imposing penalty. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.