RAM NATH SAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE Ld. Advocate for the appellants states that the seizure in this case was made nowhere near the border. The purity of the gold was 995 and not 999 and there was no foreign marking on the impugned gold and hence seizure itself was illegal. He also states that the version of the Department that the gold was recovered from the rectum is not true as the same is not supported by any X -Ray Report or Doctors certificate.

(3.) HEARD the Ld. D.R. who supports the impugned order and states that the retraction which was made later on cannot be taken into account in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Narendra Kr. Jain v. Commr. of Customs (P), Shillong reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 594 (Tri. -Kolkata).