SUBAL SAHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (P), SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against confiscation of gold pieces weighing about 56 gms. and redemption fine of Rs. 18,000/ -. The appellants have submitted that he had purchased the gold in the form of broken pieces from another person and that there was no markings of foreign country on these broken pieces and he had no knowledge that the goods were smuggled. He has, therefore, submitted that the seizure and confiscation of the gold was not justified.

(2.) HEARD Shri S.N. Ghosh, ld. JDR for the Revenue. Shri Ghosh submits that the appellants contention that the gold pieces had no foreign marking is not factually correct. He refers to the seizure list filed along with the appeal itself and refers to Serial Number 3 of the seizure list which clearly mentions that the item is a gold coin with marking as 'Credit Suisse. He, therefore, submits that the burden of proving that the gold was imported in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act was on the appellant. He submits that as this burden has not been discharged by the appellant, confiscation was justified.

(3.) I have perused the records of the case and considered the rival submissions. The appellant has not given any clear particulars about how he acquired the gold in question except vaguely stating that he purchased it from a person of village Porakashia. His contention that there were no marking indicating the foreign origin of the gold is also not factually correct. As the item attracted the provisions of Section 123, the authorities cannot be faulted for confiscation of the gold in the absence of proper explanation by the possessor. However, the redemption fine is too high. Accordingly, the same is reduced to Rs. 5,000/. Subject to this modification, the impugned order is upheld.