Ramesh Chand and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these are two appeals emerging from a common order. since both the appeals arise from the same facts and rely on the same submissions hence both are being disposed of by the single order.2. in this case 11 pcs. of primary gold weighing 391.700 gms. and purity 231/2 cts. were admittedly recovered from hakim singh one of the appellants. the other appellant ramesh chander admitted that the said primary gold was given by him to his servant, hakim singh for custody.there is no denial of unauthorised acquisition, possession, custody/control of the gold seized by the department. in the order-in-original the gold was confiscated absolutely and a penalty of rs. 2,000/- were imposed on shri ramesh chander and 500/- on shri hakim singh under section 74 of the gold (control) act, 1968. when the party went up in appeal before the collector of customs (appeals) the order of the lower authority was upheld. it is against this order that appellant is before us.3. shri panna lal kapoor, advocate appears on behalf of the appellants and submits that he is not pleading against the penalty. his only plea is for the release of the gold when even at the time of the seizure was claimed to belong to third party. the learned advocate argued that it is not the practice of the department to confiscate gold absolutely in such cases and it should be allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine.4. shri s. krishna murti, sdr reiterates the view taken in the orders of the lower authorities and submits that the appellant was neither a dealer nor a goldsmith and that absolute confiscation is fully merited.5. the facts of the case and the submissions made before us have been fully considered. there is no appeal against penalty imposed which is therefore upheld.6. as regards the plea for release of the impugned gold on payment of a redemption fine, it is observed by us that as per the practice prevailing in the department in such cases while ordering confiscation redemption is invariably allowed on payment of fine.7. accordingly, upholding the confiscation of the gold we order release thereof on payment of redemption fine of rs. 25,000/-.8. since the appellants have urged that the gold belongs to two certified goldsmiths and have also produced documentary evidence in support thereof, i agree with the member (technical) that while upholding the confiscation the gold should be released (sic).

Judgment:
1. These are two appeals emerging from a common order. Since both the appeals arise from the same facts and rely on the same submissions hence both are being disposed of by the single order.

2. In this case 11 pcs. of primary gold weighing 391.700 gms. and purity 231/2 cts. were admittedly recovered from Hakim Singh one of the appellants. The other appellant Ramesh Chander admitted that the said primary gold was given by him to his servant, Hakim Singh for custody.

There is no denial of unauthorised acquisition, possession, custody/control of the gold seized by the department. In the Order-in-Original the gold was confiscated absolutely and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- were imposed on Shri Ramesh Chander and 500/- on Shri Hakim Singh Under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. When the party went up in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) the order of the lower authority was upheld. It is against this order that appellant is before us.

3. Shri Panna Lal Kapoor, Advocate appears on behalf of the appellants and submits that he is not pleading against the penalty. His only plea is for the release of the gold when even at the time of the seizure was claimed to belong to third party. The learned Advocate argued that it is not the practice of the department to confiscate gold absolutely in such cases and it should be allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine.

4. Shri S. Krishna Murti, SDR reiterates the view taken in the orders of the lower authorities and submits that the appellant was neither a dealer nor a goldsmith and that absolute confiscation is fully merited.

5. The facts of the case and the submissions made before us have been fully considered. There is no appeal against penalty imposed which is therefore upheld.6. As regards the plea for release of the impugned gold on payment of a redemption fine, it is observed by us that as per the practice prevailing in the department in such cases while ordering confiscation redemption is invariably allowed on payment of fine.

7. Accordingly, upholding the confiscation of the gold we order release thereof on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

8. Since the Appellants have urged that the gold belongs to two certified Goldsmiths and have also produced documentary evidence in support thereof, I agree with the Member (Technical) that while upholding the confiscation the gold should be released (sic).