ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 01.12.2025
CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Gold Confiscation and Penalty
This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.
In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside the confiscation of 2,333.02 grams of gold and a penalty of βΉ1 lakh imposed on the appellant. β The case, which revolved around the alleged smuggling of gold into India, has brought to light critical aspects of the Customs Act, 1962, and the burden of proof required to establish the smuggled nature of goods. β
Background of the Case
The case originated from an intelligence report received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which alleged that the appellant was carrying smuggled gold from Bangladesh. β Acting on this information, DRI officials intercepted the appellant at Santragachi Railway Station in Kolkata and recovered 20 gold biscuits weighing 2,333.02 grams, valued at βΉ1,21,66,699. β The gold biscuits bore foreign markings, and the appellant failed to produce any documents proving their licit acquisition. β Consequently, the gold was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a penalty of βΉ1 lakh was imposed under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act.
The appellant challenged the confiscation and penalty, arguing that the gold was not of foreign origin and that the seizure was not based on a reasonable belief of smuggling. β The case was brought before CESTAT Kolkata for adjudication. β
Key Issues Addressed by the Tribunal β
The Tribunal identified five key issues to be addressed:
- Reasonable Belief for Seizure: The Tribunal found that the DRI’s intelligence was not specific enough to establish a reasonable belief for seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act. β The intelligence lacked details such as the appellant’s age, address, and the circumstances of the alleged smuggling. β
- Foreign Origin and Smuggled Nature of Gold: The Tribunal observed that the gold’s foreign markings and its purity (ranging from 99.7% to 99.8%) were insufficient to establish its foreign origin or smuggled nature. β The investigation failed to provide evidence of the gold’s import route, the importer, or the circumstances of its acquisition. β
- Foreign Markings: The Tribunal reiterated that foreign markings alone cannot establish the smuggled nature of goods. β It cited several judicial precedents that emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to prove smuggling. β
- Application of Section 123 of the Customs Act: The Tribunal held that the burden of proof under Section 123 does not shift to the appellant unless the Customs authorities first establish the foreign origin and smuggled nature of the goods. In this case, the authorities failed to meet this requirement. β
- Imposition of Penalty: Since the gold was not proven to be smuggled, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was not justified. β
Final Verdict
The Tribunal concluded that the gold in question was not liable for confiscation under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Furthermore, the Tribunal directed that if the seized gold had already been disposed of, the appellant should be refunded the value of the gold at the average market price prevailing on the date of its disposal, along with applicable interest, as per CBIC’s instructions. β
Implications of the Ruling
This landmark judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. It highlights that mere foreign markings or assumptions cannot be used as evidence to establish the smuggled nature of goods. β The ruling also reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the Customs authorities to substantiate their claims before invoking provisions like Section 123 of the Act.
Conclusion
The CESTAT Kolkata’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of the need for thorough investigation and adherence to legal procedures in cases of alleged smuggling. It also provides clarity on the application of the Customs Act, particularly in cases involving town seizures and goods with foreign markings. β This judgment is a significant win for the appellant and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Source: CESTAT Kolkata
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply