Concealed High-Purity Gold Confiscation Upheld by HC

Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata vs. Anil Kumar Soni (2026) 41 Centax 400 (Cal.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rajarshi Bharadwaj & Uday Kumar, JJ.
• S/Shri Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee & Tapan Bhanja, Ld. Advs., for the Appellant.
• S/Shri Arijit Chakraborti, N.K. Chowdhury, Ms Nilotpal Chowdhury, Prabir Bera & Deepak Sharma, Ld. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from interception of 1,999.90 grams of gold bullion from a carrier at Howrah Railway Station, concealed in a specially stitched waist belt. The carrier initially admitted under Section 108 that the gold was of foreign origin and meant for illicit transit. The owner later claimed the gold was of indigenous origin, allegedly derived from melting scrap jewellery, supported by GST invoices. The Adjudicating Authority ordered absolute confiscation and penalties, relying on clandestine transport and high purity (99.5–99.6%) of gold. However, the Tribunal set aside confiscation, primarily on the ground that it was a “town seizure” with no foreign markings and accepted the respondent’s documentary trail. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the High Court challenging both maintainability objections and the Tribunal’s findings.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable as “valuation” under the exclusion clause relates to duty quantification, whereas absolute confiscation is an enforcement action in rem; thus, jurisdiction was not barred. It further held that monetary limits prescribed by CBIC instructions do not preclude appeals involving statutory interpretation or perversity in findings. On merits, the Court held that “reasonable belief” under Section 123 is based on conduct and material, not geographical location, and clandestine concealment coupled with 99.6% purity of bullion triggered reverse burden on the respondents. The Court found that the Tribunal ignored material evidence, including scientific purity and delayed retraction, rendering its findings perverse. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order was set aside, absolute confiscation of gold and penalties were restored, and the appeals were allowed in favour of the Revenue.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Commissioner v. Anil Kumar Soni — (2026) 41 Centax 399 (Tri. Kolkata) — Reversed [Paras 1, 2, 4.1, 4.7, 12.1, 12.3, 13.1]

List of Cases Cited

• Ajay Saraogi v. Union of India — 2023 (386) E.L.T. 333 (Cal) — Relied on [Paras 4.4, 5.5, 10.4]
• Balkrishna Chhaganlal Soni v. State of West Bengal — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1527 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4.2]
• Ciabro Alemao v. Commissioner — 2018 (362) E.L.T. 465 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 4.4, 10.4]
• Collector v. D. Bhoormall — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 3.11, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5]
• Collector v. Dhiren Chemical Industries — 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on (para 5.2, 7.4]
• Commissioner v. Daleep Kumar Verma — (2024) 24 Centax 397 (Meghalaya) — Referred [Para 5.2]
• Commissioner v. Himadri Chakraborty — 2023 (386) E.L.T. 418 (Cal.) = (2023) 9 Centax 93 (Cal.) — Referred [Paras 4.4, 5.5]
• Commissioner v. Merino Panel Product Ltd. — (2022) 1 Centax 59 (S.C) = 2023 (383) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Applied [Paras 5.3, 11.4]
• Commissioner v. Nand Kishore Somani — 2016 (337) E.L.T. 10 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 5.3]
• Commissioner v. Om Prakash Khatri — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 402 (Ker.) — Followed {Paras 4.5, 11.3]
• Commissioner v. Prahlad Kumar Das — Cus. Ref. No. 2 of 2025, dated 13-10-2025 by Gauhati High Court — Referred [Para 5.6]
• Commissioner v. R.K. Swami Singh — (2025) 35 Centax 262 (Manipur) — Referred [Para 5.2]
• Commissioner v. Rajendra Kumar Damani — 2024 (389) E.L.T. 444 (Cal.) = (2024) 19 Centax 224 (Cal.) — Relied on [Paras 4.3, 9.2]
• Commissioner v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited — 2014 (304) E.L.T. 7 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 5.2]
• Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa — 1978 (2) E.L.T. 159 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 5.7, 11.4, 12.2]
• Illias v. Collector — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1427 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 10.2]
• K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Collector — 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 10.3]
• Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector — 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 7.3]
• Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal — 1999 (110) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 10.2]
• Rara Brothers v. M.L. Dey — 2000 (125) E.L.T. 425 (Bom.) — Relied on [Para 5.3, 9.2]
• Sampad Narayan Mukherjee v. Union of India — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 280 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 4.3]
• Union of India v. Abdulkadar Abdulgani Hasmani — 1991 (55) E.L.T. 497 (Guj.)] — Referred [Para 5.3]
• Union of India v. Imtiaz Iqbal Pothiawala — 2019 (365) E.L.T. 167 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 5.5]
• Vinod Solanki v. Union of India — 2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5.4]

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

• C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC, dated 17-8-2011 [Paras 4.6, 7.4]
• C.B.I. & C. Instruction No. 390/Misc./30/2023-JC, dated 2-11-2023 [Para 4.6]