1986 (1) TMI 231 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold from appellant without valid permit or document.
2. Charge against the appellant under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of gold under Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
4. Testing of gold purity by a certified goldsmith.
5. Challenge to the correctness of the testing of gold purity.
6. Quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:

1. Seizure of gold from appellant without valid permit or document:
The appellant was found in possession of two gold slabs without being a certified goldsmith or licensed gold dealer, leading to the seizure of the gold under Mahazar attested by witnesses. The appellant admitted to purchasing foreign gold biscuits and melting them into slabs for sale. The seizure was made under provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

2. Charge against the appellant under Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant challenged the charge under the Customs Act, arguing that the gold must be of foreign origin for confiscation. The Department relied on the inculpatory statement of the appellant, but the Tribunal found the statement recorded two days after seizure to be involuntary and unreliable. With no other evidence to prove foreign origin, the impugned order under the Customs Act was set aside, and the appeal allowed.

3. Confiscation of gold under Gold (Control) Act, 1968:
The appellant's possession of primary gold was admitted, and its purity ascertained to be 24 carat by a certified goldsmith. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that the gold was from family ornaments melted into bars, as there was no conclusive evidence linking the seized gold to the entrusted ornaments. The appellant's challenge to the goldsmith's expertise in testing purity was dismissed, and the plea of being entrusted with 24 carat purity ornaments was deemed improbable.

4. Testing of gold purity by a certified goldsmith:
The Tribunal upheld the goldsmith's certification of the gold's purity as 24 carat, emphasizing the appellant's failure to challenge the certification through cross-examination or providing evidence to refute it. The appellant's argument against the goldsmith's expertise was deemed legally untenable, as the certification was issued in accordance with the Gold (Control) Grant of Certificate Rules, 1970.

5. Challenge to the correctness of the testing of gold purity:
The appellant's challenge to the gold purity testing was rejected due to the lack of evidence undermining the certified goldsmith's findings. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following established procedures to contest expert opinions and the appellant's failure to provide substantial proof against the purity certification.

6. Quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant:
The penalty imposed on the appellant was reduced from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 2000, considering the circumstances of the case. Despite the penalty reduction, the appeal was otherwise dismissed, affirming the decision on the confiscation of gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's findings and decisions on each aspect of the case.