Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1360 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - Gold Biscuits - Foreign Origin Goods - increase from 1166g to 1283g - confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the writ petitioner could not discharge the burden at all since it was impossible for the writ petitioner to suggest that the 1283g of gold recovered from him were attributable to the 1166g of gold that had been purchased by him from G. Seal & Co. some eighteen months back. Since there was no meaningful defence or any modicum of an explanation rendered by the writ petitioner as to how such writ petitioner came to be in possession of the gold that was found on his person, the order passed by the adjudicating authority and the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The order of the Tribunal assailed in the writ petition clearly recorded cogent grounds as to why the Tribunal disbelieved the writ petitioner and agreed with the order of adjudication. When findings of fact are rendered by competent bodies having jurisdiction to enquire into such facts, such factual findings are to be scarcely interfered with in exercise of the power of judicial review unless they appear to be perverse on the face of it. An alternative argument has been attempted by the writ petitioner at this stage by referring to Section 125 of the Act of 1962. According to the writ petitioner, since it was not prohibited to import or export gold at the time when the seizure was effected from the writ petitioner, the adjudicating authority ought to have given the writ petitioner the option in terms of such provision before attempting to confiscate the goods - It does not appear that such a case was made out in the writ petition. No ground appears to have been taken in the writ petition that even if the adverse findings against the writ petitioner were not interfered with, the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction of confiscating the goods should be corrected. Since such a ground was not urged in the petition and it is not evident immediately as to whether the import or export of gold was prohibited in the year 1994, such ground has not been permitted to be canvassed by the writ petitioner at this stage. The order of the Tribunal is restored. The appellant will take immediate appropriate steps against the writ petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petitioner will pay costs of the entire proceedings assessed at ₹ 1 lakh.
|