No Confiscation of Gold Without Foreign Marking | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

gold seizure confiscation
Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata vs. Anil Kumar Soni (2026) 41 Centax 399 (Tri.-Cal)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
  • Shri Faiz Ahmed, Authorised Representative, for the Appellant.
  • Shri N.K. Chowdhury & Ms Atika Sumran Ahmed, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Two pieces of gold bars collectively weighing 1999.990 grams were recovered from the assessee at Howrah Railways Station. The gold recovered did not have any foreign markings. It was a town seizure, and the gold had a purity of less than 99.9%. The gold was claimed to be owned by another person, who produced documentary evidence with regard to the procurement of the gold in question. The matter was placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that the seized gold had not been smuggled into India through an unauthorised route or means. It was further held that the gold could not be held liable for confiscation under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal also held that penalties imposed under Sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, were to be set aside. Accordingly, confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalties were set aside.

List of Cases Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *