Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Sunil Saraogi vs Kolkata-Admn Airport on 12 September, 2025
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No. 75665 of 2023
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. Kol/Cus/Airport/ks/385/2023 dated 12.05.2023
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 3rd Floor, Custom House, 15/1,
Strand Road, Kolkata-700001)
Sunil Saraogi, : Appellant
Flat No. 402, Himalaya Crown,
4th Floor Apartment, Amravati Road,
Law Collage Square, Shankar Nagar,
Nagpur, Maharashtra-440010
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs (Airport & : Respondent
Administration),
Customs House, 15/1 Strand Road
Kolkata-700001
APPEARANCE:
Shri Shovendu Banerjee, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Ashwini Kr. Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. / 2025
DATE OF HEARING: 10.09.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.09.2025
ORDER:[PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN] The instant appeal is filed against Order-in- Appeal No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/KS/385/2023 dated 12.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) confirming the Order-in-Original No. 19/2022 - JC dated 9.03.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata, whereby the Joint Commissioner has ordered absolute confiscation of 7 (seven) pieces of gold bars totally weighing 700 grams and valued at Rs.
Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 26,88,000/- under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,70,000/- upon Shri. Sunil Saraogi (the appellant herein), under Section 112 (a) & 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was to travel to Nagpur along with his wife and daughter by Indigo flight No.6E-663 on 18-12-2019. At the time of screening of his baggage at the domestic departure terminal of the NSCBI Airport, the CISF personnel recovered 7 pieces of gold biscuits and 1 kg of silver granules from the baggage of the appellant. As the appellant could not produce any document for legal purchase of the gold and silver in question on the spot, the CISF personnel "seized the yellow metal (appeared to be gold) and silver granules and handed it over to officers of Customs for initiating necessay action under the Customs Act, 1962.
2.1. On completion of investigation, a show-cause Notice No. 130/ADC/AIU/2020 dated 11.12.2020 was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 proposing confiscations of the gold bars and imposition of penalty on the appellant under the provision of the Customs Act 1962.
2.2. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Original No. 19/2022 JC dated 9.03.2022, wherein the Ld. adjudicating authority has absolutely confiscated the 7 pieces of gold and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,70,000/- upon the appellant, under Section 112
(a) & 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. The silver granules seized was ordered to be released. 2.3. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed impugned Order-in-Appeal No. Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 KOL/CUS/AIRPORT /KS/385/2023 dated 12.05.2023 confirming the order of absolute confiscation of gold, passed the adjudicating authority. However, he has enhanced the penalty from Rs. 2,70,000/- to Rs, 27,00,000/-.
2.4. Aggrieved against the confirmation of absolute confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. The appellant submitted that he along with his wife and daughter were scheduled to leave for Nagpur from the NSCBI Airport, Kolkata by the Indigo flight on 18-12-2019. Therefore, there is no doubt that he was scheduled to travel by a domestic flight as a domestic passenger. As a domestic passenger, he was under no legal obligation to declare the gold he was carrying unlike in the case of International incoming passengers. The legal provisions quoted in paragraph 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 of the SCN in support of confiscation of the goods and Imposition of penalty on the appellant is applicable only in the case of incoming international passengers. 'Baggage' means the baggage of an Incoming international passenger, which will be evident from section 81 of the Customs Act 1962 and the Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations 2013. 3.1. The appellant submits that the detention of the gold and silver by the CISF and subsequently by Customs officials has no 'reasonable belief' that the gold (silver has already been released) in question was of smuggled in nature. As a domestic passenger, he was under no legal obligation to carry the documents for the licit purchase of the gold and silver detained by the officials. Later during investigation they established with documentary Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 evidence that the gold and silver in question were not of smuggled in nature.
3.2. The appellant submits that he had old gold jewellery with purity of 20-22 Karat which he had given to his daughter; that his daughter was unable to use it as it was very old; that, hence, he decided to get the old jewellery melted and refined at Kolkata since Kolkata is a hub of jewellery designers and gold smiths to make new jewellery; that he gave 779.100gms of old jewellery to a gold refiner and melter M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co., Gold and Silver Melter, Refiner and Neharia, 18,19,20 Ramcharan Sett Road, Ramrajatala, Howrah-711104 for refining and melting; that he received 700.050gms. of gold after refining and removing all impurities; that he bought the silver by paying a cash amount of Rs.44,908/- under bill no. S/0945 from M/s Jalan Silver Garden Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata; that he then decided to make jewellery at Nagpur since the jewellers in Kolkata were reluctant to give a certificate of purity; hence, he was travelling from Kolkata to Nagpur on 18-12-2019 with 700.000gms of gold and 01kg (approx.) of silver granules when he was intercepted by the CISF and handed over to customs.
3.3. The appellant submits that he got panicky and became nervous after seeing many customs officers. In order to avoid pressure and further questioning, he told the officers that he bought them from Kolkata. Later during the course of investigation, he gave all documents evidencing domestic procurement/ conversion of the gold and silver. The following documents were submitted by him in support of his claim that the said gold bars were made by melting his old jewellery:
Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023
a) Receipt voucher/challan no.103 dated 13-
12-2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for refining/melting of 779.100gms. of assorted old broken gold ornaments and articles issued by M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co. Gold and Silver melter, Refiner and Neharia 18,19,20, Ramcharan Sett Road, Ramrajatala, Howrah-711104; (pg 89)
b) Issue voucher/challan no.103 dated 13-12- 2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for 7 pieces gold bar weighing 700.050gms. issued by M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co. Gold and Silver melter, Refiner and Neharia 18,19,20, Ramcharan Sett Road, Ramrajatala, Howrah-711104.(pg 90)
c) Bill no.103 dated 13-12-2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for Rs.1558/- as gold ornaments melting and refining charges issued by M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co. Gold and Silver melter, Refiner and Neharia 18,19,20, Ramcharan Sett Road, Ramrajatala, Howrah-711104.(pg 91)
d) Tax invoice bearing no. S/0945 dated 12- 12-2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for Rs.44,908/- Issued by M/s Jalan Silver Garden Pvt. Ltd., 52 Manohar Das Street (Sona Patty), 1st Floor, Kolkata-700007.(pg
92) 3.4. The appellant submits that the above documents clearly establish that the 7 pieces of gold Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 were made by melting his old jewellery. The authorities have accepted the documentary evidence submitted by him for domestic purchase of the silver and released the silver, but, they have not accepted the documents submitted by him for melting of the old gold jewellery.
3.5. The appellant submitted that the investigation officers verified all the documents submitted by him and found that all documents were genuine. Shri Amit Panja, in his statement categorically stated that he has melted the old gold jewellery received from the appellant. Regarding the Markings of "Suisse" and "BAUNLEE CHOMPOO" available on the gold bars, Shri Amit Panja stated that his company gave markings either of his company's name or any other symbol as desired by the customer, which is evident from paragraphs 11 and 16 of the SCN. Thus, the appellant submits that it is therefore an acceptance of the melter that the symbols on the seven pieces gold bars were given by them as desired by the customer/appellant. It is important to note that they have not denied that they have not put the markings as they appear on the said seven pieces gold bars. Thus, the appellant submits that it would prove beyond doubt that the seven pieces of gold bars confiscated in the impugned order were obtained after melting and refining of old gold ornaments which were duly accounted for in their books of accounts. In support of this claim, the appellant submitted copies of Balance Sheet as on 31-03- 2008. From the said Balance Sheet, it is evident that the appellant had purchased gold valued at Rs.49,36,727.00/-. From the attached details, the full account of the gold is available and it may be Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 found that the appellant had a balance of old gold ornaments of 800.862gms.
3.6. Thus, the appellant submits they have discharged the burden cast upon them as per section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 that the gold in question were his own property and the gold bars were obtained by melting of his old jewellery. However, the appellant submits that the department has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the gold in question was of smuggled in nature.
3.7. In the absence of any evidence on record to establish the foreign origin of the seized gold, the appellant submits that their claim of lawful domestic procurement of the gold bars remains uncontroverted. Consequently, the confiscation of the gold is untenable in law and liable to be set aside.In support of their contentions, the appellants have placed reliance on the following case law:-
Daleep Kumar Verma v. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.), Shillong [Final Order Nos. 75300-75302 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 75315 of 2022 &ors. - CESTAT, Kolkata] Balanagu Naga Venkata Raghavendra v. Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada [2021 (378) E.L.T. 493 (Tri. - Hyd.)] Balwant Raj Soni &ors. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.), Patna [Final Order Nos. 75455-75457 of 2023 dated 18.05.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 75414 of 2022 -
CESTAT, Kolkata]
Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023
Sarvendra Kumar Mishra &Anr. v.
Commissioner of Customs [2021 (9) TMI 405 - CESTAT, Allahabad] Commissioner of Cus (Prev.), Patna v.
Lalit Krishna Agarwal [Final Order No. 77506 of 2023 dated 08.11.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 75499 of 2022 -
CESTAT, Kolkata] Commissioner of Cus., Chennai-III v.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah [Final Order No. 40289 of 2023 dated 20.04.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 40099 of 2020 -
CESTAT, Chennai] Ajit Bhosle v. Commissioner of Cus.
(Prev.), Kolkata [Final Order Nos. 77019- 77022 of 2019 dated 09.08.2019 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75667 to 75670 of 2017 - CESTAT, Kolkata] Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (266) E.L.T. 422 (S.C.)] Siemens Ltd. [2007 (207) E.L.T. 168 (S.C.)] 3.8. The appellant submits that two samples marked A1 and A2 weighing 2.200gm and 2.200gm, respectively, were taken from the said gold biscuits bars. However, only the chemical test result in respect of gold sample marked A1 has been supplied. Chemical test result in respect of gold sample marked A2 was not supplied. A RTI application dated 19/06/2021 was also made to the CPIO of the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) requesting inter alia for information as to Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 whether chemical examination in respect of the sample of gold marked A2 has been done or not, and to provide the chemical test report if chemical examination has been done. In reply vide letter dated 14/07/2021, it has been informed by the CPIO & Dy. Commissioner of Customs that no chemical examination has been done in respect of the sample marked A2 relating to six pieces of gold bars bearing the words "BAUNLEE CHOMPOO. As per the chemical examination report in respect of the sample marked A1, it was was found to be gold of 99.7% purity and not 999.9% purity, which is normally associated with imported 24 carat gold. Thus, the appellant submits that the one gold bar with "Suisse" marking mentioned in the seizure list dated 05-12-2020, is also not of foreign origin as evidenced form the test report. As no test has been conducted on the other bars, the department has not produced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the said gold bars were of foreign origin and smuggled in nature. On the contrary, he has discharged the burden under section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 by submitting all relevant documents vis-a-vis the certification regarding genuineness of those documents by Shri Amit Panja of M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co. 3.9. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the order confiscating the 7 pieces of gold bars and imposing penalty on the appellant.
4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents.
6. I find that the appellant was a domestic passenger scheduled to travel by Indigo flight No.6E- 663 on 18-12-2019. At the time of screening of his Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 baggage at the domestic departure terminal of the NSCBI Airport, the CISF personnel recovered 7 pieces of gold biscuits and 1 kg of silver granules from the baggage of the appellant. As the appellant could not produce any document for legal purchase of the gold and silver in question on the spot, the CISF personnel seized the 7 pieces of gold bars and silver granules and handed it over to officers of DRI for initiating action under the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, I agree with the submission of the appellant there is no legal obligation on the part of the domestic passenger to carry all documents evidencing legal purchase of the gold and silver.
6.1. The appellant further submitted that there was no 'reasonable belief' on the part of the CISF officials and subsequently by the Customs Officers to detain the gold on the ground that they were smuggled in nature. In this regard, I observe that the detention of the gold by CISF officials and subsequent seizure and absolute confiscation by Customs officials centers around the exercise of authority by the Custom Officials under section 110 (1) of the Customs Act, which reads as under: -
"Section 110 (1): Seizure of goods, documents and things: If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods."
6.2. In the present case, I observe that the gold was seized by the personnel CISF from the domestic terminal and later handed over to Customs, meaning that the Customs officers did not act on their independent belief but merely accepted the detention/seizure done by another agency. The Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100, held that the authority effecting the seizure must demonstrate a subjective satisfaction based on objective material, failing which the seizure is invalid.
6.3. I observe that even after accepting the gold from personnel of the CISF, the Customs officers did not derive any subjective satisfaction that the gold was of foreign origin and smuggled. The seizure inventory fails to disclose any material evidence justifying a 'reasonable belief' for seizure of the gold. In this regard, I observe that the mere finding of gold does not render it liable for seizure unless there is cogent and positive evidence proving its foreign origin as the first condition, as precursor to seizure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gian Chand v. State of Punjab (1962 AIR 496), has categorically held that mere suspicion is not sufficient to justify seizure, and the prosecution must provide substantive evidence of foreign origin.
6.4. Further, I observe that in Union of India v. Mahesh Raj (1990 SCC (3) 115), the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the burden under Section 123 arises only if there is prima facie evidence indicating foreign origin, which is entirely absent in this case.
6.5. Also, in D. Bhoormull (1974 AIR 859), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that suspicion alone is not a substitute for evidence. In Umrao Lal v. Commissioner of Customs (2016 (331) E.L.T. 216 (Tri.-Del.), it was held that in the absence of markings or material evidence proving foreign origin, confiscation is not sustainable.
Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 6.6. In the instant case, I observe that CISF personnel has recovered the 7 bars gold from the procession of appellant solely on the suspicion that it was smuggled and later handed it over to Customs. However, instead of conducting an independent verification or forming their own reasonable belief based on credible evidence, the Customs officers proceeded with the seizure under the Customs Act without exercising due diligence. They failed to assess whether a reasonable belief of smuggling genuinely existed, as required by law, and merely acted on the presumption created by CISF personnel. This lack of independent application of mind renders the seizure arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
6.7. In this regard, I find that a similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal, Kolkata in Customs Commissioner of Cus (Prev.), Patna v. Lalit Krishna Agarwal [Final Order No. 77506 of 2023 dated 08.11.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 75499 of 2022 - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein it was observed as under:-
"6. In fact, during the course of investigation, it is a fact on record that boondi silver and silver jewellary were recovered from the shop of the respondent. So, the question arises that in the absence of any seizure of Port or Airport or not having any foreign markings on the goods seized from the respondent, how the officers came to the conclusion that the goods are third country origin goods. Therefore, first, onus on the Revenue is to make a reasonable belief that the goods are of third country. Admittedly, no such evidence has been Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 produced by the Revenue to allege that to make a reasonable belief, the goods are of third country origin. In the absence of that, the goods in question cannot be confiscated."
6.8. In view of the above discussions, I hold that there was no 'reasonable belief' in this case for seizure of the gold in question in terms of Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
6.9. Regarding domestic procurement of the gold, I observe that later during the course of investigation, the appellant gave all documents evidencing domestic procurement/ conversion of the gold and silver. The following documents were submitted by him in support of his claim that the said gold bars were made by melting his old jewellery:
a) Receipt voucher/challan no.103 dated 13-
12-2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for refining/melting of 779.100gms. of assorted old broken gold ornaments and articles issued by M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co. Gold and Silver melter, Refiner and Neharia 18,19,20, Ramcharan Sett Road, Ramrajatala, Howrah-711104; (pg 89)
b) Issue voucher/challan no.103 dated 13-12- 2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for 7 pieces gold bar weighing 700.050gms. issued by M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co. Gold and Silver melter, Refiner and Neharia 18,19,20, Ramcharan Sett Road, Ramrajatala, Howrah-711104.(pg 90)
c) Bill no.103 dated 13-12-2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for Rs.1558/- as gold Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 ornaments melting and refining charges issued by M/s Rabindra Nath Panja & Co. Gold and Silver melter, Refiner and Neharia 18,19,20, Ramcharan Sett Road, Ramrajatala, Howrah-711104.(pg 91)
d) Tax invoice bearing no. S/0945 dated 12- 12-2019 in the name of Sunil Saraogi for Rs.44,908/- Issued by M/s Jalan Silver Garden Pvt. Ltd., 52 Manohar Das Street (Sona Patty), 1st Floor, Kolkata-700007.(pg
92) 6.10. I find that the above documents clearly establish that the 7 pieces of gold were made by melting his old jewellery. I find that the investigation officers verified all the documents submitted by the appellant and found that all documents were genuine. Shri Amit Panja, who melted the gold jewellery into gold bars in his statement categorically stated that he has melted the old gold jewellery received from the appellant. He also submitted the invoice raised by him for melting the jewellery. For ready reference, the copy of the said invoice is reproduced below:
Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 6.11. Regarding the Markings of "Suisse" and "BAUNLEE CHOMPOO" availble on the gold bars, I observe that Shri Amit Panja stated that his company gave markings either of his company's name or any other symbol as desired by the customer, which is evident from paragraphs 11 and 16 of the SCN. Thus, I observe that the melter has informed the officers that the symbols on the seven pieces gold bars were given by them as desired by the customer/appellant. It is important to note that Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 they have not denied that they have not put the markings which appeared on the said seven pieces gold bars. Thus, I hold that the evidences available on record indicates that the seven pieces of gold bars confiscated in the impugned order were obtained after melting and refining of old gold ornaments which were duly accounted for in their books of accounts. In support of accounting of the jewellery in their books of account, the appellant submitted copies of Balance Sheet as on 31-03-
2008. From the said Balance Sheet, I find that the appellant had purchased gold valued at Rs.49,36,727/-. From the documents submitted, I find that the appellant had a balance of old gold ornaments of 800.862gms.
6.12. Thus, I find that the appellant has discharged the burden cast upon him as per section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 that the gold in question were his own property and the gold bars were obtained by melting of his old jewellery. I also find that the department has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the gold in question was of smuggled in nature.
6.13. I find that two samples marked A1 and A2 weighing 2.200gm and 2.200gm, respectively, were taken from the said gold biscuits bars. However, only the chemical test result in respect of gold sample marked A1 has been supplied. Chemical test result in respect of gold sample marked A2 was not supplied. A reply received by the appellant under RTI from the department vide letter dated 14/07/2021, reveals that no chemical examination has been done in respect of the sample marked A2 relating to six pieces of gold bars bearing the words "BAUNLEE CHOMPOO. As per the chemical examination report Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 in respect of the sample marked A1, I observe that, it was was found to be gold of 99.7% purity and not 999.9% purity, which is normally associated with imported 24 carat gold. Thus, I find that the one gold bar with "Suisse" marking mentioned in the seizure list dated 05-12-2020, is also not of foreign origin as evidenced form the test report. As no test has been conducted on the other bars, I observe that the department has not produced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the said gold bars were of foreign origin and smuggled in nature. On the contrary, the appellant has discharged the burden cast upon him under section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 by submitting all relevant documents evidencing domestic procurement of the gold. Thus, I hold that the appellant has discharged the burden cast upon them under section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 by submitting all relevant documents. I also find that the department has not produced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the said gold bars were of foreign origin and smuggled in nature.
6.14. In this regard, I observe that it is a settled law that even foreign markings on gold bars do not, by themselves, establish the smuggled nature of the gold. The place of seizure in this case is the domestic terminal of NSCBI airport. Thus, I observe that additional evidence is therefore required to prove that the gold was illegally imported, which is not available in this case.
6.15. In this regard, I refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.), New Delhi [Final Order No. 51030 of 2022 dated 31.10.2022 in Customs Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 Appeal No. 51709 of 2021 - CESTAT, New Delhi]. The relevant observation in the said decision is reproduced below:-
"23. ............................
Admittedly, the seized gold was of 99.5% purity, whereas normally the smuggled gold is of 99.9% purity. On this score also there can be no presumption of gold being smuggled only on the basis of foreign marking. In absence of any chain of events supporting movement of smuggled gold from the border area or customs area to town or a person coming from an international border, I hold that simply possession of foreign marking gold without a bill does not lead to the conclusion that it is smuggled."
6.16. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Prithviraj Pokhraj Jain [2000 (126) E.L.T. 180 (Bom.)] has held as under: -
"19. The burden was, therefore, on the prosecution to prove that the goods were smuggled. For this the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Hebbar who stated that he believed the goods to be smuggled, because watches and watch straps were of foreign origin, the import of which was heavily restricted and prohibited and they were found in huge quantity. The foreign origin of the watches is tried to be shown from the foreign markings on the watches. The question whether the foreign markings of goods can be treated as admissible in evidence was considered by Naik J. in Criminal Appeal No. 3 Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 of 1966, decided on 22nd December, 1966. Among the property involved in that case were some gold slabs. The slabs bore the marking "Johnson Mathey 9990 London". Naik J. observed in his judgment that the markings do not speak for themselves and that evidence would be hearsay evidence. There was nothing to indicate that the markings were really done by Johnson Mathey in London. No presumption can arise in regard to the markings, unless there is evidence to show that those markings were made by a particular company in the ordinary course of business. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has also taken a similar view in Asstt. Collector of Customs, Baroda, v. M. Ibrahim Pirjada, 1970 Criminal Law Journal, 1305. There, the Gujarat High Court has held that mere markings cannot be taken as proof of the fact of foreign origin of the goods as such markings and labels would be hearsay evidence. With respect, I agree with the above view."
6.17. Regarding the markings "Suisse" available in one piece of gold, I find that it was found to be gold of 99.7% purity and not 999.9% purity, which is normally associated with imported 24 carat gold. Thus, I find that the one gold bar with "Suisse" marking mentioned in the seizure list dated 05-12- 2020, cannot be considered to be of foreign origin as evidenced form the test report. Regarding the remaining 6 bars, I also find that there are no specific findings in the impugned order to prove that "BAUNLEE CHOMPOO" is a foreign marking. It is seen that "BAUNLEE CHOMPOO" is neither an internationally recognized brand nor a certified Customs Appeal No.75665 of 2023 hallmark or refinery marking associated with any established gold manufacturer. In the absence of any official certification, industry recognition, or conclusive evidence linking "BAUNLEE CHOMPOO" to a specific foreign source, such markings, if they even existed at seizure cannot be relied upon to establish the foreign origin of the gold. There is no factual or legal basis to conclude that such markings, even if present, prove illicit importation. Thus, I observe that the confiscation of the remaining 6 gold bars on this ground alone is legally untenable and unsupported by the evidence on record. Thus, I hold that the confiscation of the gold on this ground is therefore legally untenable and unsupported by the evidence on record.
6.18. In view of the above, I set aside the order confiscating the 7 pieces of gold bars. As the confiscation of the gold bars is not sustained, imposing penalty on the appellant for the alleged offence is also not sustainable and hence I set aside the same.
7. In view of the above discussions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order Pronounced in Open court on 12.09.2025) (K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) RKP