TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atna. 2. The facts which are relevant are that Shri Ram Charan Soni (hereinafter referred to as Shri Soni), a licensed Gold Dealer of Varanasi, was intercepted at 21.40 hours on 8-8-1988 by the Customs officers at the Bus Stand of Gorakhpur and taken to the Customs Office. The search of his person resulted in the recovery of melted gold prices of foreign origin along with new gold ornaments, totally weighing 405 gms. valued at Rs. 3,24,340/-, in respect of which Shri Soni failed to produce any bill, voucher, document etc. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was also recovered from him. The said gold, gold ornaments and the cash were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Shri Soni was arrested. In his statement dated 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, U.S. Lal, K.B. Lal and P.K. Gupta were exonerated under the Customs Act, 1962. However, the seized gold ornaments of 375 gms. of Shri P.K. Barnwal were confiscated under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each was imposed on S/Shri R.K. Barnwal and U.S. Lal under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The present appeals have been filed by only Shri Soni. 3. Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee, ld. consultant appearing for the appellant, submits that there is no evidence to prove that the impugned gold and gold ornaments are of foreign origin. He strongly contends that the samples of seized gold were not sent to Government Mint for assay purpose, instead the Customs relied upon the so-called expert opinion of a goldsmith Shri V.K. Barn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsultant prays for setting aside the order impugned. 4. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the reasoning contained in the order impugned and justifies absolute confiscation of the gold and gold ornaments in question and imposition of penalties on the appellant. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and on a careful perusal and examination of the relevant record, two serious infirmities have been noticed in respect of the order impugned. Firstly, assay of the gold was not got done by an authorised expert or by the Government Mint. Secondly, cross-examination of the important persons was denied. 5.1 As regards assay of the gold in question, it is noticed that the same was got done by Shri V.K. Barnwal, a Golds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that the appellant made a specific request for cross-examination of the seizing officer, panch witnesses and the goldsmith who gave his assay report but that opportunity was denied to him. The adjudicating authority justifies his action in the following words :- In view of the physical nature of the seized goods which was admitted at the time of personal hearing also as above vis- -vis the fact that said Sri Soni had not denied the recovery of the seized goods from his possession, cross-examination of seizing officer as well as panch witness did not appear necessary in a quasi-judicial proceedings as the present one and hence the opportunity for the same has correctly been denied. Further, the second statement that the recovered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
