Order date – 17 August 2022

Facts – 

• The appellant, M/s. Hari Manthan Jewellery House Private Limited, were issued show cause notice and 3 pieces of gold bars were seized.
• The appellant has duly discharged his burden of proof under section 123 of the Customs act, 1962 by producing his books of accounts, purchase invoices, bank statements etc. in support of his statements that the gold seized from Appellant Mohanlal @ Ram, his employee, was part of his legally purchased/ procured gold in course of his legitimate business.
• By not accepting the evidences produced the adjudicating authority had confiscated seized goods i.e. 3 pieces of gold bars weighing in total 1958.240 gms. valuing Rs. 60,70,540/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalties upon the appellants.
• Aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the seizure of gold is justified along with levy of penalty?

Order – 

• The Tribunal relied on the facts and evidences produced by the appellant and observed that the order of confiscation of the seized gold weighing 1958.240 grams under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 only on suspicion and presumption, is bad in law and cannot sustain.
• There is nothing on-record from the investigating and/or adjudicating authority to controvert the evidences produced by the Appellants in the present case.
• Hence, they set aside the same with consequential relief to the Appellant Sri Vikash Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Agrawal Gold House.
• Consequently, penalties imposed upon the Appellants under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, are also set aside with consequential relief.