2016 (9) TMI 122 - AT - Customs

Excess stock of gold ornaments found in the registered premises of the appellant confiscation under section 71 of the erstwhile Gold (Control) Act, 1968 option to redeem on payment of redemption fine and penalty under section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 Held that - In view of the material facts recorded and the stultifying of an appeal, if any, against the first order, the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority is not tenable. Further, in view of the finding that option to redeem confiscated goods can be, and has been, legally exercised by appellant, there is no bar to release of the confiscated goods - impugned order is modified to direct the Assistant Commissioner to release the confiscated gold after confirming that the redemption fine has been paid by appellant appeal disposed off.

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal after the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was rescinded.
2. Disposal of excess stock of gold ornaments by a registered gold dealer.
3. Appeal process and jurisdictional challenges faced by the appellant.
4. Exercise of the option to redeem confiscated gold and pending appeals.
5. Discrepancies in the official records and jurisdictional issues.
6. Denial of redemption based on pending appeals and jurisdictional confusion.
7. Authority to release confiscated goods and payment of redemption fine.

Issue 1 - Maintainability of the appeal:
The judgment addresses the issue of maintainability after the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was rescinded. The appeal survived long after the Act's rescission, and the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing after disposing of the show cause notice.

Issue 2 - Disposal of excess stock of gold ornaments:
The appellant, a registered gold dealer, was found with excess stock of gold ornaments in 1983. The excess stock was confiscated under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and penalties were imposed. The appellant sought relief from the Tribunal, which led to a series of jurisdictional challenges and delays in disposing of the matter.

Issue 3 - Appeal process and jurisdictional challenges:
The appellant faced challenges in the appeal process, including rejection by the Tribunal due to failure to seek relief from the Collector (Appeals). Subsequent jurisdictional changes and delays further complicated the matter, leading to confusion regarding the appropriate appellate authority.

Issue 4 - Exercise of the option to redeem confiscated gold:
The appellant sought to exercise the option to redeem the confiscated gold, but faced resistance due to pending appeals. The judgment clarifies that the exercise of the redemption option is not contingent on the disposal of pending appeals, emphasizing compliance with the original order.

Issue 5 - Discrepancies in official records and jurisdictional issues:
The judgment highlights discrepancies in official records and jurisdictional changes that affected the appellant's ability to redeem the confiscated gold. The confusion surrounding the jurisdiction of appellate authorities and the lack of timely actions exacerbated the situation.

Issue 6 - Denial of redemption based on pending appeals:
The denial of redemption based on pending appeals was deemed untenable. The judgment emphasized that the exercise of the redemption option should not be hindered by the pendency of appeals, and the release of confiscated goods should not be delayed unnecessarily.

Issue 7 - Authority to release confiscated goods and payment of redemption fine:
The judgment modified the impugned order to direct the Assistant Commissioner to release the confiscated gold upon confirmation of the payment of the redemption fine by the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, providing clarity on the release of confiscated goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the various issues involved, including the historical background, jurisdictional challenges, and the resolution regarding the release of confiscated goods.

← Previous Next →