Full Judgment
3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents have illegally acquired and possessed contraband goods and had failed to produce evidence to substantiate legal acquisition of the seized gold. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents in the statement specifically mentioned that the gold was received by her from father and mother-in-law but could not produce any evidence regarding receipt of the gold received from her mother and father-in-law. In these circumstances the Revenue contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The contention of the respondent is that gold in question was received from father and mother-in-law which was given to the respondent at various occasions and mere foreign markings on gold alone is not conclusive proof to establish smuggled nature of seized goods.
The respondents relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gunwant Lal Godawat v. Collector of Customs 5. In the case the gold was seized in the year 1988 by the Income Tax department which was subsequently released in the year 1993. The Revenue seized the gold and on receipt of an information from the Income Tax department on the ground that it was having foreign markings hence is smuggled in nature.
6. From the very beginning the stand of the respondent is that the gold in question is received by her from father and mother-in-law on various occasions. It is also come on record that the father of the respondent were under the Holker Rulers and the gold was given to her father by the Holker Rulers from time to time as reward from his services, this fact was not rebutted by the revenue. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.