Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Gauri Shankar Singh vs Commissioner Of Customs on 23 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(127)ELT286(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. The matter was called, Shri Krishan Kumar, Advocate, appeared for the appellant Shri Gauri Shankar Singh, Raja Ki Mandi, Agra. For the respondent/Revenue, Shri K. Panchasaran, JDR, is present.
2. According to the facts on record, four silver slabs weighing 20140 gms. were recovered from the possession of the appellant by the State Police on 7-10-1991 when the appellant was in the city of Basti and was standing before his hotel. The police had seized the silver on the suspicion that it was stolen property. The recovery was made by the police on 7-10-1991 and it was only on 17-12-1991 that the silver slabs were handed over to the Customs Department. The Customs Officers alleged that the goods were smuggled and had been brought into India from Nepal in violation of Notification No. 76/65 dated 19-6-1965 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had pleaded that he was a petty goldsmith, had never gone to Nepal, the goods were not smuggled goods and that he had got the gold ornaments melted for ease of transport and that the purity of the silver as ascertained was only 819,807,920 and 821.
3. From the facts on record, I find that the silver slabs had no marking and there is nothing on record to correlate that they were of Nepali origin or had been brought into India from Nepal in contravention of the provisions of law. The adjudicating authority had not discussed any evidence that the appellant had smuggled the silver from Nepal. The goods were initially recovered by the police and it was after more than two months that the goods were handed over to the Customs Department. The goods were recovered within the country and there is no discussion as to how they could be considered as smuggled goods when there were no markings on the silver and the purity was also of 819,807,920 and 821.
4. The goods were seized in the year 1991 and were valued Rs. 89,421/-.
5. After carefully considering the matter, I do not find any ground to consider the silver seized and confiscated as smuggled goods. I set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and direct the Department to release the goods to the appellant. At this stage, the learned advocate submits that the appellant had pre-deposited the penalty amount for hearing the appeal. The penalty amount is also liable to be refunded to the appellants. I direct the Department accordingly.
6. As a result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.