1987 (5) TMI 39 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold and silver under Customs Act
2. Imposition of penalties on the petitioner
3. Appeal to Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal
4. Reduction of penalty by the Tribunal
5. Petitions seeking reference of questions under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act
6. Rejection of the applications by the Tribunal
7. Filing of petitions under Section 130(3) of the Act and Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act
8. Hearing of the petitions and submissions made by the petitioner
9. Questions raised in the petitions and their dismissal by the Court

Analysis:

The case involved the confiscation of gold and silver under the Customs Act, where the police had recovered contraband goods from the petitioner's house. The Collector of Customs imposed penalties on the petitioner, which were later appealed to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the ownership of the goods by the petitioner but reduced the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The petitioner then filed petitions seeking reference of questions under both the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, which were rejected by the Tribunal in a combined order.

In the subsequent petitions under Section 130(3) of the Act and Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act, the petitioner sought directions to the Appellate Tribunal to refer the questions for the opinion of the High Court. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel raised issues regarding the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, citing an FIR registered by the police. However, the Court found that these submissions were not raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, did not arise from the Tribunal's order.

The Court further dismissed questions related to the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was the owner of the contraband goods, stating that it was a finding of fact and did not raise any legal issues. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed in limine, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that no questions of law arose from the Tribunal's findings on the ownership of the seized goods, leading to the dismissal of the petitions seeking reference of questions under both Acts.