" (1) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Customs Appeal No. 30249 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-056 to 059-20-21 dated 22.06.2020 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Shree Pukhraj Jain .. APPELLANT S/o Roshan Lal, Roshan Villa, D.No. 12-13-677/73, St. No. 1, Tarnaka, Kimtee Colony, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500 017. VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam – Cus 4th Floor, Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035. WITH Customs Appeal No. 30250 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-056 to 059-20-21 dated 22.06.2020 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Shree Goutham Kumar Rawal .. APPELLANT S/o Daya Shankar Rawal, D.No. 7-2-421/1, St. No. 1, Tarnaka Bastu, R.P. Road, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500 017. VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam – Cus 4th Floor, Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035. WITH Customs Appeal No. 30251 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-056 to 059-20-21 dated 22.06.2020 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Shree Ghevar Ram .. APPELLANT S/o Bhunda Ram, R/o, C/o Narasimha, Maruthi Veedhi, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500 017. VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam – Cus 4th Floor, Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035. (2) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 AND Customs Appeal No. 30252 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-056 to 059-20-21 dated 22.06.2020 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) Shree Praveen O .. APPELLANT S/o Om Prakash, R/o. 30-167/2, Neredmet, Ramakrishnapuram, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 556. VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam – Cus 4th Floor, Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035. Appearance Shri Pranay Sohini, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A. Rangadham, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. Coram: HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30293-30296/2025 Date of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025 [Order per: ANGAD PRASAD] The appellants are aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-CUSTM- 000-APP-056 to 59-20-21 dated 22.06.2020 (impugned order) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, whereby, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of seized gold weighing 3314 gms valued at Rs. 1,08,69,920/- (One Crore Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty only) under Section 111(b), 111(d), 111(h), 111(i) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 and modified the penalties on appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal and appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 and on the appellant Praveen O under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 order was modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated (3) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 22.06.2020 wherein Learned Commissioner reduced to Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only) in the case of appellant Shri O. Praveen and Rs. 2 lakhs in the case of appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants filed these appeals before CESTAT. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Officer of DRI having specific intelligence that two passengers travelling by Train No. 12514 from Gowahati to Secunderabad via Visakhapatnam, where smuggling gold of foreign origin, intercepted the appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and the appellant Shri Praveen O and questioned whether they were carrying any smuggled gold for which they replied in negative. Later, they admitted that they were in possession of smuggled gold biscuit kept in the pockets of their white colour cotton waist. Later, they were taken to the DRI Office to conduct the proceedings. Appellant Ghevar Ram stated that he was carrying 13 gold biscuits (2154 gms) of foreign origin and appellant Shri Praveen O stated that he was carrying 7 gold biscuits (1160 gms) of foreign origin and the same were smuggled from Myanmar to India. They had also stated that they were carrying the same to Secunderabad on the instruction of their employers, appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal and appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain respectively. 4. The Officers of DRI seized 20 gold biscuits under Section 111 of the Customs Act 1962 by the Panchanama dated 04.01.2019. Thus, gold biscuits were examined by the approved gold assayer cum valuer, who certified vide report dated 04.01.2019 that the 20 yellow rectangular gold biscuits of 999.9% (24 karat) gold, the total weight being 3314 gms and (4) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 total value being Rs. 1,08,69,920/- (One Crore Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty only). 5. Statement of the appellant Shri Ghevar Ram was recorded on 04/05.01.2019 and 09.01.2019, wherein, he had, interalia, stated that he works at M/s Kushi Bullion, which owned by Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal and the gold he was carrying belongs to his Proprietor. Shri Ghevar Ram further stated that a person called them over phone and delivered the gold in the hotel room at Gowahati and told them the foreign marking on the gold biscuits was erased by hammering. Appellant Shri Ghevar Ram also stated that he did not possess any documents evidencing the receipt of importation of the gold. 6. Appellant Shri Praveen O, in his statement which was recorded on 04/05.01.2019 and 09.01.2019 wherein, he had interalia, stated that he works at M/s New Ganesh Jewellery, Habsiguda, Secunderabad, owned by the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and his brother Rakesh Jain and the gold he was carrying belongs to his Proprietor. Appellant Shri Praveen O further stated that a person called them over phone and delivered the gold in the hotel room at Gowahati and told them the foreign marking on the gold biscuits was erased by hammering. Appellant Shri Praveen O also stated that he did not possess any documents related to the gold. 7. On the basis of statements of appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and Praveen O, statement of the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain recorded on 07.01.2019 wherein, he stated that he being proprietor of M/s New Ganesh Jewellers, Secunderabad and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal planned to procure the gold from Gowahati as the gold was available at cheaper rates and they can make profits on the same. He further stated that the amount (5) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 was paid to the supplier of the gold by Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal at Hyderabad before procurement of the gold. 8. Appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal in his statement dated 09.01.2019 stated that he is the proprietor of M/s DK Jewellers and M/s Kushi Bullion in Secunderabad. He stated that he and Shri Pukhraj Jain planned to procure the gold from Gowahati as the gold was available at cheaper rates and they can make profits on the same. He further stated that the amount was paid to the supplier of the gold by him on 02.01.2019 at Hyderabad before procurement of the gold. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated in brief that the impugned order passed by the Lower Authorities is contrary to the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, as well as against principles of natural justice. There are serious irregularities, illegalities and discrepancies in the impugned order. The present case is town seizure and it is settled law that in such cases, the value of confiscated goods includes the duty component at the time of inspection is not known to determine the exchange rate and value of the goods. The Lower Authorities also failed to observe that no opportunity of cross-examination of the Punch witness were provided to the appellants. The cross-examination conducted in respect of approved Assayer-cum- Valuer have no credibility. Report given by the approved assayer-cum- Valuer which was relied on by the Lower Authorities is without any basis. No any corroborative evidence on record to prove that the gold was smuggled from Myanmar except the statement of the appellants. No investigation was carried out at Gowahati to confirm that the subject gold is smuggled. The subject goods were seized at Visakhapatnam Railway Station, which is not the custom notified area. The Adjudicating Authority (6) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 did not consider the appellant’s request to arrange the subject gold physically for physical examination to know its country of origin and other details to make further additional submissions. The Adjudicating Authority did not consider the appellants request to intimate the exact quality of the subject gold so as to enable them to submit further reply in this regard. The appellant requested the Adjudicating Authority to arrange for the cross- examination of the Punch witness and the same was not arranged. Thus, appellant’s right to defend their case on merit has been denied. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents miserably failed to establish that the subject gold was ever smuggled in to the country and subsequently failed to prove that the subject gold was of foreign origin. The appellants had purchased gold from the open market and while the employees of the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal were carrying such gold, the gold was seized in Visakhapatnam town. The gold is freely available in the market, it has been purchased by the appellant from the open market, Gowahati. The burden of proof that the gold was smuggled into India lies on the Department which they failed to prove. The Department states that the payment has been made through hawala, but failed to bring on record as to how the payment was made. Whereas, the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal subsequently proved that they had purchased gold and payment has been made. Appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal submitted the relevant documents to the Lower Authorities but those documents were not considered by them. The Department ought to have gone into the root of the case and to approach Shri Sagar at Guwahati from whom the appellants have allegedly procured (7) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 the gold. The Department could have checked with Shri Sagar, whether the gold was legally imported or not. 11. Learned AR submits that when the goods were seized from the possession of the Appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and appellant Shri Praveen O, they did not have any documents/invoices regarding the gold. The proper Officer had reasons to believe that the gold was smuggled since they failed to produce any documents/invoices. In these circumstances, burden of proof lies on the person, who claims that the gold has been legally acquired. The appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and Praveen O did not have any documents/invoices at the time of seizure, even appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal failed to prove their ownership as required by Section 123 of the Customs Act. Learned AR relied on Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Keral Vs Om Prakash khatri [2019 (3) TMI 457 Kerala HC] in which Hon’ble High Court held that a reading of Section 123 requires only reasonable belief as far as gold is concerned that it was smuggled. The gold was recovered from the possession of two individuals intercepted by DRI, who were not able to give a satisfactory explanation to opposed the reasonable belief entertained by the DRI officers who recovered a huge quantity of unmarked gold from the persons intercepted infact the statements made by the intercepted individuals further verified the belief entertained by the officials. The statements of carriers of the gold under Section 108 of the Act can be squarely relied upon by the Department to proceed against them. 12. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned AR for the Department at length and perused the records. Appeals are related to same (8) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 impugned order, therefore above appeals were heard simultaneously to decide together. 13. Section 110 of the Customs Act provides that if a proper Officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, then he may seize such goods. 14. From the facts, it appears that the appellants Shri Ghevar Ram and Shri Praveen O did not open the packet of said gold biscuit given to them at Guwahati and they did not see the contents therein at Guwahati. The gold was in sealed packet when it was opened before the DRI Officers at the DRI office at Visakhapatnam. In the absence of their knowledge about the actual contents in the sealed packet, statement recorded from the appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and the appellant Praveen O that they accepted the smuggled gold of foreign marking are not reliable. They received gold in sealed packet, why would Shri Sagar inform/tell them that the foreign marking has been removed by hammering, it is also unnatural and unreliable. There is no foreign marking as approved Assayer’s report dated 04.01.2019 which shows 13 yellow metal biscuits are recovered from the appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and 7 from the appellant Shri Praveen O. Assayer reported that 20 yellow metal biscuits appear to be of foreign origin. There is no mention about foreign marking in the assayer/valuer report. Shri Vankayala China Venkata Rama Gupta, approved assayer and valuer in his cross examination stated that there are marking of foreign origin on the gold biscuits. It is a contradiction from his report, as if any markings were present on the seized gold then why did he not report the same. It is also important that Shri Sagar, Guwahati stated that foreign markings were erased by hammering then how is it possible that the said foreign markings (9) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 are still present on seized gold. Department did not produce either the seized gold inspite of appellants request, as the Customs Authorities had already disposed of the confiscated gold during pendency of the case or any other evidence to suggest that such disposed gold was marked with foreign markings. 15. The appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and Praveen O stated in their statements that Shri Sagar in Guwahati, Assam at the time of delivery told them that all the foreign markings on the biscuits were erased by hitting a hammer. Department has not interrogated Shri Sagar, who was supplier of the seized gold. It is also important to mention that no such statement is present in the Punchanama. If any such type of statement has been given by Shri Sagar in Guwahati and if such hammering was found on the seized gold then it should be in the report of assayer/valuer. It is also an important fact that inspite of specific name and address, Department did not try to interrogate Shri Sagar, which creates a doubt on the part of the Department. In these cirmcustances, Commissioner of Customs, Kerala Vs Om Prakash Khatri, supra, which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the instant case, since no evidence to prove that effort was done to erase the markings on seized gold. In the case of Om Prakash Khatri, there was an allegation against the appellant that there was an effort to erase the markings on them, as mentioned by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgment. The relevant paragraph is as thus: 19. The unmarked gold recovered from the possession of two persons and their statements as to the source of the gold was sufficient to have a reasonable belief that the gold is smuggled. The two persons who were carrying the gold had nothing in their possession to prove the legitimacy of the gold they carried. The fact that the gold bars and pieces did not have any marking on them is suspicious and it points to a concerted effort to erase the markings on them. The burden under Section 123 which is only of a reasonable belief; is effectively discharged by the Department who initiated action on the basis of the seizure and the recorded statements of the detained persons. The mere fact that the interception and seizure was not affected in an (10) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 international border or near an airport or seaport is irrelevant, since the statements of the intercepted persons clearly indicate that they were asked to avoid such means of transport and stick to the normal modes of public transport. There can also be no presumption drawn that the carriers of smuggled gold after the gold reaches the country would only resort to commutation by air or sea. The persons from whom the gold was seized disowned the same and said that they were mere carriers of Om Prakash Khatri, who accepted that the gold seized belonged to his Company. Then the onus to prove that the gold was not smuggled, so as to upset the reasonable belief entertained by the Department shifted and sguarely rested on his shoulders. The gold bars and pieces were subjected to chemical examination which revealed that they were of 99.8% purity. The Tribunal ignored this aspect and referred to the purity of the ornaments; which was not an issue before it. Learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on the following case laws: i) Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Boddu Ramaiah Vs Government of India and Others [1987 (32) ELT 355 (A.P.)], wherein, it was held that merely because the goods were seized in Visakhapatnam Town, it cannot be assumed that the goods in question have been imported into India in contravention of the provision of Customs Act. ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs Tokyo Electronics [2007 (212) ELT 86 (Tri-Del)], wherein, it was held that goods were neither prohibited nor notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Goods were freely importable under Open General Licence and also freely available in open market. Revenue failed to conclusively prove that goods were smuggled by respondents. In the absence of any conclusive evidence as to involvement of respondents in smuggling activity, no infirmity in impugned order setting aside the confiscation. iii) Commissioner of Customs Vs Monoranjan Bainik [2004 (165) ELT 237], wherein, it was held that mere fact that goods were admitted to be of foreign origin does not ipso facto lead to inevitable conclusion that the same are of smuggled character. Smuggled nature of goods to be proved by Revenue by producing affirmative and tangible evidence. Assumption and presumption that goods are seized from the area which is a smuggling zone cannot be the basis for confiscation. iv) Dipak Dep [2003 (157) ELT 237], wherein, it was held that mere non-production of (11) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 documents or acquisition of goods cannot lead to the conclusion that the goods are smuggled. v) Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta [2001 (130) ELT 921 (Tri-Kolkata)], wherein, it was held that mere non-production of documents showing licit acquisition of goods by claimant not a ground for holding the goods to be smuggled. vi) Sadbhavana Vs Commissioner of Customs, Indore [2003 (158) ELT 652 (Tri-Del)], wherein, it was held that mere non-production of the bill by the appellant, a small concern and not leads to an inference that they had smuggled those goods. In these facts and circumstances, it is clear that the Department has failed to establish that the concerned Officer has reason to believe that the seized gold is smuggled gold. For the sake of argument, appellant Shri Ghevar Ram and Shri Praveen O failed to produce any documents/invoices. Proper Officer had reasonable belief that the seized gold was smuggled gold then burden of proof lies on appellants Shri Pukhraj Jain and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal to prove that the seized gold was not smuggled gold and they were purchased legally. 16. Appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain in his statement dated 07.01.2019 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 states that he and his friend Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal planned to buy 99.5% purity gold from Gowahati at cheaper rates and they could make substantial profit by sharing the same. They wanted to invest in the ratio of 50:50 and share profit in the same ratio. He has given only Rs. 35 lakhs in cash to the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal and agreed to share profit in the same ratio as investment. Appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal has made payment to the supplier after identifying and he planned to send Shri Ghevar Ram and Praveen O. (12) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 Appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal and agreed to share profit of investment. The appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal in his statement dated 09.01.2019 stated that he and his friend planned to bring smuggled gold as the same is available at cheaper rate and they could make substantial profit by selling the same in the market. Then in the first week of December, 2018 they sent Shri Rakesh Jain brother of the appellant Shri Pukhraj jain and his employee Shri Ghevar Ram to enquire about the gold. They decided to procure around 3.5 kgs gold from Shri Sagar at Gowahati and paid Rs. 1 crore to the supplier of smuggled gold. 17. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no dispute that the appellant Shri Praveen O is the employee of the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and the appellant Shri Ghevar Ram is the employee of the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal. The statement of the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal reflect that a total of Rs. 1 crore was invested by both of them, out of which Rs. 35 lakhs is of the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and Rs. 65 lakhs is of the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal. In other words, the investment of the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal is in the ratio of 3.5:6.5. The quantity of gold seized from possession of the appellant Shri Praveen O is 7 gold biscuits (1160 gms) and quantity of gold seized from the possession of appellant Shri Ghevar Ram is 13 gold biscuits (2154 gms) are also in the ratio of 3.5:6.5, which is the ratio of investment by their respective employers as mentioned above. Statements given by the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal are similar especially regarding investment in gold business. These findings of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in accordance with the (13) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 statements given by the appellant of the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal. It is also undisputed that the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain is a proprietor of M/s New Ganesh jewellery, Secunderabad and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal is a proprietor of M/s D.K. Jewellers and M/s Khushi Bullion in Secunderabad. Both are in the business of jewellery. In these facts and circumstances, their statements are natural and reliable. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain submitted at the time of adjudication as an evidence of source of income for procurement of the said gold in returns/balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2019 assessment year 2019-2020 in which balance was shown Rs. 39,84,918/- (Thirty Nine Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighteen only). Appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain stated in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 that he has paid Rs. 35 lakhs in cash. 19. Appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal have produced his income details and CA certificate dated 05.11.2019 as an evidence of source of income for procurement of the subject gold. In CA certificate, in which it is mentioned that the Audited books of accounts shows an amount of Rs. 65 lakhs advance/ invested in purchase of gold during the month of January, 2019 and also produced entry relating asset column in which mentioned Shri Sagar, Guwahati Rs. 65 lakhs. Lower Authorities denied to accept these documents and observed that any legitimate transactions involving a huge total amount of Rs. 1 crore cannot be advanced by way of cash or it should have definitely been done through a bank note. Observations given by the Lower Authorities are proper, but due to this reason, it cannot be (14) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 established that the seized gold is smuggled gold. Here, it is also important to mention that burden of proof is on appellant only preponderance of probability and is not beyond reasonable doubt. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indru Ramchand Bharvani Vs Union of India [1988 (7) TMI 78 (SC)] held that the burden that lay upon the petitioners had been fully discharged to show that the goods are not smuggled. The High Court on an analysis of the facts found that the onus was not duly discharged and held that though the burden on the petitioners was not as high as on the prosecution but there must be preponderance of probabilities. Co-ordinate Bench, Kolkatta in the case of Srikant T Mehta Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [1992 (61) ELT 615 (Tri-Kol)] held that it is a well established principle that where the burden of proof lies upon the appellants then he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient in this case, that the appellant succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. Therefore, the appellant Shri Pukhraj Jain and the appellant Shri Goutham Kumar Rawal proved their onus as required by Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. 20. Learned Adjudicating Authority had allowed application for cross examination of the Punch witnesses, but they did not turn up for cross- examination. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that however, the Punch witness expressed their inability to appear because of some urgent personal work. It is not sufficient ground to deny their right to cross examination of Punch witnesses. It is also important to mention that in the record of personal hearing no such ground is mentioned that Punch witnesses did not appeared because of some urgent personal work. (15) Appeal No. C/30249 -30252/2020 Therefore, Department also failed to produce Punch witnesses for cross examination as requested by the appellants. It is also against the principle of natural justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC)], held that denial of cross-examination of persons whose statement has been relied upon for issuing the show cause notice is violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order passed on complete defiance of the settled law is at nullity and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II Vs Milton Polyplas (I) Pvt Ltd., [2019 (367) ELT 962 (Bom)], held that denial of cross-examination of person whose statements were relied upon by Revenue would vitiate the order passed by the Commissioner. 21. Therefore, Department has failed to establish a reasonable belief that the seized gold is smuggled, whereas, the appellants concerned established that the gold was not smuggled and they had been procured by licit means. Therefore, confiscation of gold and imposing of penalty are not sustainable and appeals are liable to be allowed. 22. Therefore, appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Order pronounced in the Open Court on_13.08.2025__) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (ANGAD PRASAD) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) jaya "