UOI v. Imtiaz Iqbal Pothiwala

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962

--Power to summon person to provide evidence--Smuggling of goldBurden of proof----Where nothing was brought before this court to show any confessional statements made by assessee and Driver, Employees/Agents to effect that, the seized confiscated gold was a smuggled gold, therefore, this substantial question of law was answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee. --The question arose before this court as to whether CESTAT was justified in allowing the Appeal of assessee herein and setting aside the order of confiscation of seized gold, by totally discarding the confessional statements given by assessee under the provisions of section 108, which were in the nature of admissible legal evidence. Held: This question essentially proceeded on the basis that as assessee had made a confessional statement under section 108, it was admissible as evidence and warrants, confirming the show cause notice. Further, it was directed to bring on record any confessional statement made by assessee and/or Driver, Employees/Agents to effect that, the seized confiscated gold was a smuggled gold. However, nothing was brought before this court to show any confessional statements in respect of gold made either by assessee and his drivers. Thus, this substantial question of law was answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee.