Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Onus Is On The Respondent To Establish With Documents That The Gold Was From Old Jewellery: High Court Reinstates Confiscation In Gold Smuggling Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta has upheld the confiscation of gold and Indian currency from Shri Rajendra Kumar Damani, overturning the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) decision. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, emphasized the crucial role of the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the validity of statements recorded under Section 108, despite later retractions by the respondent.

The case originated from a raid conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata, where a substantial amount of cash and gold believed to be of foreign origin was seized from the premises linked to Rajendra Kumar Damani. Following the seizure, Damani's initial statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitted to dealing in smuggled gold. However, these statements were later retracted. The adjudicating authority initially ordered the confiscation of the seized items and imposed penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). CESTAT, however, set aside these orders, leading to the revenue's appeal to the High Court.

Burden of Proof Under Section 123: The High Court underscored the significance of Section 123, which places the burden of proof on the person from whose possession goods are seized to prove that they are not smuggled. The court held that Damani failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his claim that the gold was sourced from old jewellery and not smuggled. "The onus is on the respondent to establish with documents that the gold which was seized was from and out of the old gold jewellery purchased by cash," the court observed.

Voluntariness and Evidentiary Value of Section 108 Statements: The court found that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the initial statements recorded under Section 108 as involuntary without proper examination. "Merely because the statement is said to have been retracted, it cannot be regarded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained," the court noted, referencing the Supreme Court's principles on assessing retracted statements.

Evaluation of the Tribunal's Findings: The court criticized CESTAT for shifting the burden of proof onto the revenue without first establishing that the respondent had met his burden. The Tribunal's acceptance of the respondent's claim that the gold was made from old jewellery was deemed unsubstantiated. "The finding is absolutely perverse and contrary to the scheme of Section 123 of the Act," the court stated.

Consistency and Credibility of Evidence: The High Court highlighted inconsistencies in the respondent's claims and the lack of documentary evidence. It rejected the argument that the purity of the gold alone could prove it was not smuggled. "The respondent failed to establish the source of the gold with any credible documents," the court remarked.

Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam noted, "The substantial questions of law are answered in favor of the revenue. The respondent's failure to discharge the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act necessitates the restoration of the adjudicating authority's order."

The High Court's judgment reinforces the legal framework governing the burden of proof in smuggling cases under the Customs Act. By overturning the Tribunal's decision and restoring the adjudicating authority's order, the court has set a significant precedent emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the validity of initial statements in the face of later retractions. This ruling is expected to have a substantial impact on future cases involving the seizure of goods suspected to be smuggled.

Date of Decision: 15th May 2024

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Rajendra Kumar Damani

Similar News