9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 50,000 /-against the appellant under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and he ordered confiscation of the primary gold (6 biscuits of 999.9 purity valued at Rs. 1.32 lakhs). Under the Customs Act, he imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant and ordered the confiscation of the above said gold biscuits. 2. Since both the proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962 arise out of the same seizure and the facts involved in both the appeals are identical, we propose to dispose of the above two appeals by this common order. 3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of appreciation of this case can be summarised as follows : On 5-10-1984 the Officers of the Customs posted at L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a appeared for the appellants and the learned J.D.R. Shri B.B. Sarkar appeared for the respondents. 5. In the first instance the learned Consultant Shri Asthana drew our attention to the Order-in-Original passed by the learned adjudicating authority. In that order, the adjudicating authority had already ordered the release of VCR, wall-clock, mini sewing machine and ladies sarees collectively valued at Rs. 14,737/- seized in this case as they are covered by baggage receipt No. 11,781, dated 4-10-1984 issued by the Palam Airport, New Delhi in token of valid import of the said goods by the party on 4-10-1984. Shri Asthana stated that in spite of this order, the same has not been released. But the learned J.D.R. Shri Sarkar stated that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce are not followed. It was also stated that the gold biscuits in question were recovered from the possession of the appellant and the confessional statement of the appellant corroborate the recovery memo. 8. Replying to the abovesaid contentions, the learned Consultant stated that the recovery memo was not prepared at the spot. He also denied that the gold biscuits were recovered from the possession of the appellant but it was recovered from the possession of some other passengers and the appellant was merely implicated in this case. 9. We have considered the submissions in this case. It is now seen that the adjudicating authority has stated that the appellant was granted personal hearing opportunities on 19-6-1985,11-7-1985 and 8-10-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested the adjudicating authority to postpone the date till the first week of August, 1985. 10. But it is seen that the learned adjudicating authority in his order stated that another personal hearing was afforded to the appellant on 8-10-1985 and he did not avail of the same, but the learned consultant denied of having received any such notice by the appellant. The records are also not before us. No evidence is shown that the appellant was served with a notice. That apart it is seen from letter dated 29-7-1985 that the appellant had requested for the cross-examination of the witnesses and he also wanted to adduce evidence with respect to the possession of the gold biscuits. But the adjudication order does not deal with any of these as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
