Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: afterthought in Shri Akash Jha vs Lucknow Prev on 18 December, 2025Matching Fragments
Failed to establish No foreign markings
FOREIGN ORIGIN found on the gold
Appraisement report
confirms Gold's weight &
value, does not indicate
foreign origin
Statement of Noticee 5 &
6 suggest purity of gold
does not match foreign
origin
Penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 Authority held No mens rea established.
imposed under Section appellant knowingly Appellant lawfully
112(b). dealt with smuggled procured gold with
goods. invoices & registers.
Burden of proof under
Section 123 lies on
Department. Failure to
prove foreign origin
negates penalty.
Allegation that documents OIO/OIA rejected Appellant consistently
(stock registers, bills, documentary evidence produced authentic
melting reports) are without verification. documents. Authorities
afterthought/fabricated. ignored them instead of
verifying. Documents
prove lawful stock.
Rejection without
examination is arbitrary.
Appellant IV implicated for His role for managerial,
instructing his employees did not directly partake in
to retrieve any physical act of
gold from Delhi. OIO smuggling.
suggests his action His business practices
contributed to smuggling such as purchasing gold
without formal receipts (a
method used to avoid
excessive tax \duty)
though legally debatable,
are standard in the
industry and should not
automatically imply illicit
activity.
His business records and
stock registers that
corroborate the legal
procurement of gold.
His appeal also highlights
the retraction filed on 07.
02. 2024, clarifying that
carlier statements (made
Customs Appeal Nos.70576-70579 of 2025
under pressure) were not
reflective of actual
practices.
As per the OIO & SCN, Orders- He was merely a
salaried employee, acting
Appellant I recorded
on direct orders from the
statement implicated him senior management, had
no independent decision
in the smuggling process.
making authority
regarding procurement or
transport.
Noticee 3 contends that
his initial statement was
given under coercion and
has since been retracted.
This retraction is crucial in
his appeal as it
undermines the basis of
the evidence used against
him.
No additional
documentary evidence
links him personally to
any wrongful conduct
OIO Includes Appellant III He functioned as a driver,
followed his employer's
statement as evidence of
instructions.
his involvement in the
alleged smuggling
activity.
SCN Allegation An amount of
Rs.1,22,00,000/- cash
was given to Noticee 3
(Aksh Jha) by Sh. Umesh
Jha (Noticee 1)
A delayed retraction, without immediate complaint to judicial authorities appears to be an afterthought aimed at escaping liability. Furthermore, these statements were not Customs Appeal Nos.70576-70579 of 2025 made in isolation; they were corroborated by substantial evidence:
i. The recovery of gold meticulously concealed in a specially constructed cavity within the vehicle. ii. The initial denial by Appellants 1 and 3 upon interception, followed by admission only after notices under Sections 102 & 106 were served.
Customs Appeal Nos.70576-70579 of 2025 5.7 The story of purchasing jewellery, melting it into bullion (on 10.09.2023), and immediately sending it to Delhi (11.09.2023) for remaking jewellery appears highly contrived and presented post-facto. The documents (invoices, melting report, stock entries) submitted months after the seizure, which were never mentioned or produced during the initial search or investigation despite opportunities, lack credibility and are reasonably considered an afterthought designed to create a defence. The Adjudicating Authority's finding that this is a cooked- up story is well-reasoned.
5.15 Based on the detailed analysis of the evidence on record, the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act, the circumstances of the seizure, the corroborative evidence including CDR analysis and testing slips, and the admissions made, I find that the appellants were actively involved in a well-planned operation to smuggle foreign- origin gold procured illicitly in Delhi. The grounds raised in the appeals are found to be without merit and appear to be attempts to obfuscate the facts established during the investigation and adjudication proceedings. The narrative presented regarding legitimate procurement and transport for jewellery making is an unconvincing afterthought, contradicted by the appellants' own initial admissions and the circumstances of the case. The Adjudicating Authority has passed a well-reasoned order based on the evidence. 4.3 The first question that needs to be answered is whether the gold recovered from the personal possession of Appellant-I and from the activities carried in KIA Seltos is of smuggled gold or not?