9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Confiscation of gold ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act, declaration requirements under Section 16(7), justification for confiscation, distinction between "gold" and "goods" under Sections 79 and 66, applicability of Section 63, liability for declaration of ornaments belonging to the dealer's wife, imposition of fine.
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal regarding the confiscation of gold ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act. The Appellant argued that the seized ornaments belonged to his wife and parents, not him, and thus, he was not obligated to declare them under Section 16(7) of the Act. The Appellant contended that the failure to declare was not deliberate and did not warrant confiscation. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the word "capacity" in Section 16(7) needed deeming provisions, stating it was clear. The Tribunal also noted that the Appellant's wife, being a partner in the firm, was required to declare the ornaments. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was obligated to declare the ornaments, even if they belonged to his wife, and upheld the confiscation (Para. 2-6). The Departmental Representative highlighted the distinction between "gold" and "goods" under Sections 79 and 66, arguing that Section 63 was not applicable in this case. The Tribunal agreed with this distinction and found no basis for the seizure to be vitiated. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was legally bound to declare the ornaments under Section 16(7) and that the confiscation was justified (Para. 5-6). Regarding the imposition of a fine, the Tribunal acknowledged that while an offense was committed, it was not deliberate defiance of the law. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the fine from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 5,000, taking a lenient view due to the circumstances. The Tribunal directed consequential relief for the Appellant in light of the reduced fine (Para. 7).
|
