Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Hoping Lamin Gadew vs -Shillong(Preventive) on 2 July, 2025
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No. 75381 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CCP/NER/06/2021 dated 22.01.2021 passed by
Commissioner of Customs, Shillong)
Shri Phanang Khongsdir : Appellant
Lapalang Pdengshnong, Shillong-793006, East Khasi Hills.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), Shillong : Respondent
110 M.G. Road, Shillong, Meghalaya With Customs Appeal No. 75382 of 2021 Shri Shiva Dorjee Lapalang, Dong Madan, Shillong, East Khasi Hills-793006.
VERSUS Commissioner of Customs(Prev), Shillong 110 MG Road, Shillong, Meghalaya With Customs Appeal No. 75383 of 2021 Smt. Sainpyrthei Khongsdir R/o-Dong Shaneng, Near BSF Gate, Umpling, Shillong East Khasi Hills.
VERSUS Commissioner of Customs(Prev), Shillong 110 MG Road, Shillong, Meghalaya With Customs Appeal No. 75384 of 2021 Shri Hoping Lamin Gadew C/o-Phanang Khongsdier, Lapalang, Shillong, East Khasi Hills- 793006.
VERSUS Commissioner of Customs(Prev), Shillong 110 MG Road, Shillong, Meghalaya APPEARANCE:
None for the Appellant Shri S.Chakrovorty, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 76848-76851 / 2025 2 Appeal No.: C/75381, 75382, 75383, 75384/2021-DB DATE OF HEARING :02.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION:02.07.2025 Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal] All the appeals are arising out of a common order therefore, all are disposed of by a common order.
2. The facts of the case are that on 17.05.2019 the appellant namely Smt. Sainpyrthei Khongsdir was travelling in a bolero vehicle bearing registration no. ML 05R/8889 which belongs to cousin namely Phanang Khongsdir . Appellant was carrying huge cash going to Guwahati from Shillong along with driver Sri Shiva Dorjee and one Shri Hoping Lamin Gadew who is the cousin brother of one of her cousin.
While travelling she was intercepted by Meghalaya Police personnel and recovered the cash of Rs. 59 lakh from the her and matter was reported to Custom authority, Shillong on 18.05.2019. On the basis of the said reporting by Meghalaya Police, the statement of appellant was recorded wherein she admitted that the cash recovered from the car belongs to sale proceedings of gold but no any authentic documents were produced. On the basis of the said statement, a case was booked against the appellant alleging that the said currency recovered from the appellant is the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 04.02.2019 for absolute confiscation of the said Indian Currency and to impose penalty on all the appellants. The matter was adjudicated. The said currency was absolutely confiscated and penalties was imposed on the appellants.
3Appeal No.: C/75381, 75382, 75383, 75384/2021-DB
3. Aggrieved form the said order appellants are before us.
4. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Nor any request for adjournment has been received. Considering the issue in a narrow compass therefore, the appeals are considered for disposal.
5. Heard the Ld. Authorized Representative.
6. On going through the records placed before us and the arguments advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representative this case has been booked against the appellant where Meghalaya Police intercepted the vehicle in which appellants were travelling and having cash of Rs. 59 Lakh with them.
7. On interception of vehicle by Meghalaya Police the matter was reported to the Custom department and inculpatory statement of the appellant was recorded wherein it has been stated that the said Indian Currency is the sale proceeds of gold. On the basis of that the case has been made out for absolute confiscation of the Indian Currency and to impose penalty on the appellants.
8. If the case of Revenue is taken to be true that the said Indian Currency is the sale proceeds of gold but selling of gold in India is not an offence. In fact the sale proceeds of smuggled gold could have been confiscated but the Revenue has failed to come up with any evidence to show that the said seized Indian Currency is the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. The said onus lies on the Revenue which the Revenue has failed to do so.
9. In that circumstances the currency seized during the course of investigation cannot be confiscated at all. Therefore, the confiscation of 4 Appeal No.: C/75381, 75382, 75383, 75384/2021-DB Indian Currency seized on reportation of Meghalaya Police is not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the same is to be released to the appellant.
10. As Revenue has failed to prove that the appellants were dealing in gold therefore, no penalty could be imposed on the appellants.
11. We further take note on the fact that the statement which is based on which Revenue has relied has been retracted by the appellant later on. The statement made by the appellant has not been tested in terms of Section 138B of the Custom Act, 1962, therefore, the said statement is also not reliable statement.
10. In view of this we set aside the impugned order and direct the adjudicating authority to release the seized Indian Currency to the appellant within one month from this order and no penalty is imposable on the appellants.
11. In these terms we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) RG