Legal principle

Where gold notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is seized, the onus lies on the person from whose possession it is taken to prove bona fide procurement or possession, and ingenious concealment of the gold in a body cavity coupled with failure to discharge this statutory onus and absence of licit documents justifies absolute confiscation under Section 111 and penalty under Section 112.

Court decision

The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the six gold bars under Sections 111(d), 111(i) and 111(l) and the penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) imposed by the lower authorities, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appellant's appeal.

Facts

Acting on specific intelligence, Customs intercepted Uday Shankar Rai arriving from Guwahati via Indigo Flight 6E 208 at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata on 18.01.2016; three bundles weighing 996.600 grams concealed in his rectum were voluntarily ejected, yielding six yellow metallic melted rectangular bars of 24 Karat gold of foreign origin valued at Rs.26,40,990/-. The gold was seized as allegedly illegally imported, and a Show Cause Notice dated 08.07.2016 proposed confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(i) and 111(l) and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of the gold and imposed a penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- on the appellant, which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld by the impugned order dated 24.08.2020, observing the appellant had not satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012.

Key provisions

• Section 111(d), Customs Act, 1962 — Confiscation of improperly imported goods etc
• Section 123, Customs Act, 1962 — Burden of proof in certain cases