2001 (10) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... zed gold of very high purity of 23.9 ct. (1)           Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in absolutely confiscating the gold when the Collector himself dropped the charges under Customs Act is correct in law? (2)           Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not giving option to the petitioner under Section 73 of the Gold Control Act is correct in law? (3)           Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in absolutely confiscating the gold merely on the ba .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rsion of the appellant that the said gold was obtained out of the old ornaments, as pleaded, is acceptable or not. The learned lower authority has not accepted the version. We agree with him that this gold could not have been obtained out of old ornaments as pleaded. No reason has been given as to why the appellant did not come out with this version at the time when the statement was recorded from him. The retraction of his statement that he obtained the gold out of foreign marked gold was also belated. Without going into the reasoning of the that gold of such high purity could not be obtained in the country as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal v. State of Gujarat [1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.)], the H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pleaded, the only conclusion that emerges is that the gold has been obtained out of gold of very high purity which would have been brought into the country from outside. In this view of the matter we hold there is no warrant for showing any leniency in the matter. We, therefore, uphold the order of absolute confiscation of the gold under Section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and also the levy of penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellant under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. 2. Shri S. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the gold was not absolutely confiscable in terms of Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the applicant should have been given the option to r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X