9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal refusing to release seized and confiscated gold upon payment of redemption fine. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in a money lending business, handed over old ornaments for melting and preparation of new ornaments to a goldsmith. Customs Authorities seized the gold, alleging a fictitious marking on a gold bar. The Collector confiscated the gold under the Gold Control Act, imposing a fine. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider allowing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal, deeming the contravention serious, upheld absolute confiscation, denying redemption on payment of fine. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred by not considering the Collector's stance on redemption fine and failed to acknowledge the gold was not smuggled or of foreign origin. The High Court noted the prevailing practice of allowing redemption on payment of fine and cited a circular authorizing such releases. The Court criticized the Tribunal for disregarding this circular and not considering the petitioner's undertaking to convert the gold into ornaments. It emphasized the duty to reasonably exercise the power to grant redemption, citing a prior judgment. The Court found the Tribunal's reasons for denial unsound, as it failed to follow the Court's directive to consider redemption. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was flawed, considering irrelevant matters and overlooking established practices and legal provisions. Regarding an alternative remedy through a reference application, the Court deemed it costly and delayed justice. The Court allowed the petitioner's application, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the Collector to permit redemption on payment of fine. The Court instructed the Collector to determine the redemption fine based on the gold's value at the time of seizure. The petitioner was required to produce a certificate from a certified goldsmith within a specified timeframe. Failure to provide the certificate would allow the respondents to take legal action. All parties were instructed to act as per the Court's order.
|
